In the case, the plaintiffs alleged that, even though their mortgage insurer conceded that it would have charged a lower premium if the plaintiffs’ credit score had been higher, it failed to provide plaintiffs with an adverse action notice as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681m(a) (“FCRA”). During the proceedings, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that, whether Radian acted “willfully” in failing to comply with FCRA’s adverse notice provisions was an issue of fact for the fact-finder.
While the decision was on appeal, the plaintiffs withdrew the case, rendering the appeal moot. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment based on the Munsingwear doctrine, which provides that, under certain circumstances, the Supreme Court can vacate a judgment even after a case becomes moot to prevent a judgment, unreviewable because of mootness, from spawning any legal consequences. See United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950). While the decision can be read as effectively holding that the issue of willfulness should be decided by the court as a matter of law, the brief vacatur opinion may not conclusively resolve the issue.
Click here for the Third Circuit’s opinion and click here to view the Supreme Court docket on this case.