2017 – Page 2 – Consumer Financial Services Watch

Important Insurance Coverage Considerations for Losses Caused by Hurricane Harvey

Aug 30 2017

While the full extent of damages caused by Hurricane Harvey is unknown at present, the storm has already caused unprecedented damage in Texas. That damage arises in the midst of pending legislative change that may affect significantly losses governed by Texas law.

Specifically, for losses governed by Texas law, a recent change in Texas law thrusts an immediate decision upon policyholders. The Hailstorm Bill signed into law earlier this year and effective September 1, 2017, will thereafter apply to all first-party claims under a policy providing coverage for real property or improvements to real property that “arises from damages to or loss of covered property caused, wholly or partly, by forces of nature, including …a hurricane.” While the Hailstorm Bill contains many substantive changes,[1] a notable change is the reduction in the 18% penalty under Chapter 542 of the Texas Insurance Code (the “Prompt Payment Statute”) if an insurer fails to timely pay a covered claim. Any claim made before September 1, 2017, however, is governed by the current law, including the 18% penalty in the Prompt Payment Statute. Thus, for claims governed by Texas law, policyholders must file a claim on or before Thursday, August 31, in order to benefit from the current 18% penalties (and other provisions) provided under pre-September 1, 2017 Texas law.

As policyholders begin to evaluate their losses, careful consideration will need to be given not only to direct damage or destruction of insured property, but also from the interruption of business resulting from that property damages, contingent business interruption caused by damage to the property of important suppliers, customers, and other business partners; extra expenses incurred to resume normal operations; lack of access to property due to damage to buildings, roads, docks, etc.; interrupted electric, gas, and water services; and other circumstances depending on the particular business involved.

Spokeo Redux: Ninth Circuit Holds That a Statutory Violation under FCRA May, without More, Establish a Concrete Injury for Purposes of Article III Standing

Aug 25 2017

By: Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Roger L. Smerage, Hollee M. Watson

The Ninth Circuit has opined, again, on whether a statutory violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681, et seq.—by itself—constitutes a concrete injury for Article III standing purposes. Last year, in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the United States Supreme Court vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s original opinion on the issue. Although the Ninth Circuit had reviewed the plaintiff’s allegations for existence of a particularized injury, it had not separately analyzed whether they described a sufficiently concrete injury. In Spokeo, the Supreme Court ruled that “a bare procedural violation [of a federal statute], divorced from any concrete harm,” does not suffice to “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” But the Court declined to define a “bare procedural violation” in favor of allowing the Ninth Circuit to first consider the question. Now that the Ninth Circuit has done so, the Supreme Court may take up the question once more.

To read the full alert, click here.

Into The Breach: D.C. Circuit Weighs in on Circuit Split Regarding Standing in Data Breach Class Actions

Aug 14 2017

By Andrew C. Glass, David D. Christensen, and Matthew N. Lowe

The D.C. Circuit recently gave its opinion as to whether pleading an increased risk of future injury is sufficient to establish Article III standing to sue in a data breach class action filed in federal court. The issue has divided federal circuit courts of appeals.

In answering in the affirmative, the D.C. Circuit joined the view of the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits. Compare Attias v. CareFirst, Inc., — F.3d —-, No. 16-7108, 2017 WL 3254941 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 1, 2017), with Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2012); Galaria v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 663 Fed. Appx. 384 (6th Cir. 2016) (unpublished); Lewert v. P.F. Chang’s China Bistro, Inc., 819 F.3d 963 (7th Cir. 2016); and Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Grp., LLC, 794 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2015). In Attias, the plaintiffs did not allege that they had suffered identity theft as the result of a hacking incident involving a system containing their data. The defendant argued that the mere threat of future harm was too speculative to give rise to standing. But the D.C. Circuit held that it was plausible that the unauthorized party had “the intent and the ability to use [the] data for ill” and thus that the plaintiffs had jurisdictional standing at least at the pleading stage. Id. at *1, *5-*6. Notably, the standing issue arises under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) as an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. The D.C. Circuit did not otherwise decide whether the plaintiffs’ allegations stated a claim that could withstand a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), allowing the district court the opportunity to first review the question.

By contrast, the Second and Fourth Circuits have held that data breach plaintiffs lack standing where they plead nothing more than an increased risk of future injury. See Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., — Fed. Appx. —-, No. 16-260, 2017 WL 1556116, at *1 (2d Cir. May 2, 2017) (unpublished); Beck v. McDonald, 848 F.3d 262 (4th Cir. 2017), cert. denied sub nom., Beck v. Shulkin, No. 16-1328, 2017 WL 1740442 (U.S. June 26, 2017).

Notwithstanding the circuit court split, the United States Supreme Court has yet to grant certiorari to review the issue. We will continue to monitor and report on developments in data breach standing law as they occur.

Upcoming Amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3002 to Impact Bankruptcy Filing Practices for Mortgagees

Aug 09 2017

By: Phoebe S. Winder, Ryan M. Tosi, David A. Mawhinney

Effective December 1, 2017, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“the Bankruptcy Rules”) recently adopted by the Supreme Court will impact the allowance of secured claims in bankruptcy. Below, we focus on the amendments to Bankruptcy Rule 3002, which will serve to:

Clarify that Rule 3002 applies to secured claims in cases pending under chapters 7, 12, or 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Shorten the deadline for filing proofs of claim to seventy (70) days after the bankruptcy filing.

To read the full alert, click here.

CFPB Promulgates, House Seeks to Repeal, Final Arbitration Agreements Rule

Aug 02 2017

By Andrew Glass and Roger Smerage

Recently, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) promulgated its final arbitration agreement rule. The rule comes more than 11,000 comments, 13 months, and one change in presidential administration after the CFPB issued its proposed rule in May 2016. (K&L Gates previously reported on the issuance of the proposed rule here.) Yet despite its long history, Congress began taking steps to repeal the rule almost immediately.

District Court Set to Rule on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment in First Amendment Challenge to TCPA

Jul 28 2017

By Andrew C. Glass, Gregory N. Blase, Christopher J. Valente, Michael R. Creta, and Natasha C. Pereira

Last week, a bi-partisan coalition of political groups and the federal government completed briefing cross motions for summary judgment in American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., et al. v. Sessions, Case No. 5:16-cv-00252-D (E.D.N.C.). The case challenges the constitutionality of a portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”). The plaintiffs contend that the TCPA’s prohibition on making auto-dialed calls or texts to cell phones without the requisite consent, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) (the “cell phone ban”), imposes a content-based restriction on speech that fails to pass strict scrutiny and is unconstitutionally under-inclusive (the plaintiffs’ complaint is discussed here). The government is defending the statute’s constitutionality (previously discussed here).

District Court Gives CFPB Rare Loss on the Merits by Granting Summary Judgment on Respa Section 8 Claims

Jul 20 2017

By David D. Christensen and Matthew N. Lowe

In a win for real estate settlement service providers, another federal court has rebuffed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) aggressive interpretation and enforcement of Section 8 of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2617 (“RESPA”). Specifically, in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Borders & Borders, PLC, the District Court for the Western District of Kentucky recently granted the defendants’ summary judgment motion and dismissed the CFPB’s RESPA Section 8(a) claims. See 2017 WL 2989183 (W.D. Ky. July 13, 2017).

CFPB Director Informs Consumer Advisory Board That Bureau Will Not Shy Away from Issuing Debt Collection Proposed Rule

Jun 15 2017

By Brian M. Forbes, Gregory N. Blase, Andrew C. Glass and Roger L. Smerage

In prepared remarks delivered to the Consumer Advisory Board on Thursday, June 8, 2017, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray explained that the CFPB is moving forward with its long-anticipated debt collection rules. K&L Gates previously chronicled the CFPB’s efforts to promulgate debt collection rules here, here, and here.

The Director emphasized his view that new debt collection rules are necessary because of the age of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act—enacted in 1977—and the statute’s inability to fit modern methods of communication. According to the Director, the forthcoming rules would benefit consumers and industry participants by clarifying what constitutes unfair collection practices. Substantively, the Director focused on the portion of the CFPB’s July 2016 outline aimed at ensuring that debt collectors possess correct information about debts they are seeking to collect and consumers who owe those debts. In a notable shift, the Director indicated that the CFPB is prepared to issue a single set of debt collection rules relating to the gathering of information by and transfer of information between first-party creditors and third-party debt collectors. Acknowledging that the shift will require the CFPB to take some additional time to iron out “intertwined issues,” the Director suggested that the CFPB will try to fast-track other aspects of its proposed rulemaking, including the information third-party debt collectors must disclose to consumers and the manner in which third-party debt collectors interact with consumers.

K&L Gates will continue to monitor and report on further developments.

Regulation CC Amendments Reallocate Risks of Remote Deposit

Jun 14 2017

By: John ReVeal

More than three years after proposing amendments to Regulation CC to add new indemnities for remotely deposited checks, new warranties for electronic checks and electronic returned checks, and new indemnities for electronically created items, the Federal Reserve has at last issued final rules. These new rules also modify the expeditious return rules, including by making electronic returned checks subject to those requirements. The final rules were issued on May 31, 2017, and will take effect on July 1, 2018.

To read the full alert, click here.

No Class Conflict in Data Breach Settlement Involving Class Members With and Without Economic Injury

Jun 01 2017

By Andrew Glass, Matthew Lowe, and Brandon Dillman

On remand from the Eighth Circuit,[1] the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota recently recertified a data breach settlement class over an objector’s assertion of an intraclass conflict. Specifically, the objector asserted that a conflict existed between class members who purportedly had suffered loss and were guaranteed a payout under the proposed settlement, and those who had not suffered loss and were not guaranteed a payout. See In re Target Customer Data Security Breach Litig., No. 14-2522 (PAM), 2017 WL 2178306 (D. Minn. May 17, 2017). In rejecting the objector’s alleged conflict, the Court emphasized that “the question is not whether there is any potential or theoretical conflict among class members, it is whether class members’ different interests are antagonistic to each other.” Id. at *3.

Archive:2017