Translate this site
- Other OOIDA Websites -LandLineMag.com | LandLineNow.com | OOIDAPAC.com | OOIDATruckInsurance.com
TruckVote.com | TRACERSystem.us | Eyeontrucking.com | OOIDAFoundation.org
Font Resize
 |
|
Case Summary
| Case Name: | OOIDA et al. v. USIS Commercial Services d/b/a DAC Services |
| Court Name: | U.S. District Court, District of Colorado |
| Case Filed: | July 7, 2004 |
Allegations
The lawsuit alleges that the Termination Record Forms (TRFs) which are sold by motor carriers to DAC are consumer reports and DAC failed to satisfy the notice and authorization requirements of the FCRA before procuring TRFs. Second, driver work histories sold by DAC are vague and incomplete, and therefore inaccurate descriptors of a driver’s “work record,” and DAC has failed to take steps to assure the maximum possible accuracy of these reports. Third, class certification is appropriate here because DAC’s failures were willful, systemic and affect all drivers uniformly.
Trial was held in the fall of 2006. The trial court found that TRFs acquired by DAC from terminating motor carriers are not “consumer reports” and therefore DAC is not required to obtain authorization from drivers to receive TRFs from terminating motor carriers. It therefore dismissed all the improper procurement claims. Based upon the state of the evidence it also dismissed all claims that DAC’s negligence caused inaccuracies. The only claims presented to the jury was the claim that DAC willfully failed to assure the accuracy of its reports. The jury returned a defense verdict on all of these claims.
We appealed the decision to the 10th Circuit Court. The 10th Circuit ruled in August 2008. It affirmed the dismissal of the claim that USIS wrongfully procured TRFs. It found that TRF’s are statements by motor carriers of their “first-hand knowledge” about matters related to their business that therefore are not “consumer reports.” It found that the TRF’s fell within the exception to the definition of “consumer reports” for a reporters statements about experiences “solely between” the reporter and the consumer. While we believe the 10th Circuit’s rulings are wrong, we do not believe there is any meaningful probability that the Supreme Court will grant a petition for certiorari to review them.
News
Court Documents
