credit reports. The agreement provided, in compliance with restrictions contained in the Fair Credit Reporting Act, that A-1 was in the business of "insurance verification" and that it would use Trans Union's credit reports "in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer" and for no other purpose. Convinced that A-1 was using the information in connection with a credit repair business and violating the express terms of the written agreement by disclosing the credit reports to the consumers, Trans Union terminated its agreement with A-1 on September 3, 1986. This lawsuit followed.
Plaintiff's complaint seeks damages for tortious interference with A-1's business relationships with A-1's consumer-clients (Count 1); violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (Count 2); breach of contract (Count 3); and punitive damages (Count 4). Plaintiff has moved for summary judgment on Counts 2 and 3. Defendant has moved for summary judgment on all counts. Plaintiff's motion will be denied. Defendant's motion will be granted as to all counts except Count 3, breach of contract.
The written agreement between A-1 and Trans Union (Exhibit A to the Complaint) provided that "with just cause, such as delinquency or violation of the terms of the contract or a legal requirement" Trans Union could discontinue serving A-1 and could cancel the agreement "immediately." The agreement further provided that either party could cancel the agreement "at any time upon notice at least 10 days prior to the end of the current monthly payment period."
Shortly after the agreement was executed, A-1 sought to have Trans Union change, delete, or correct certain information contained in Trans Union's consumer credit reports on Curley Millsaps and Teresa Stansbury. From this, Trans Union concluded that A-1 was gaining access to the Trans Union consumer credit reports for the purpose of carrying on a credit repair business rather than in connection with insurance underwriting. Trans Union also concluded that A-1 must have disclosed the information it obtained to the individual consumers - an express violation of the written agreement.
A credit repair business is a business which, for a fee, will seek to advise consumers of their rights with respect to consumer credit reports and to assist consumers in correcting or deleting information in credit reports that is improper under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. It is undisputed that A-1 did operate a credit repair business for which A-1 charged substantial fees to its clients. Obviously there is tension between credit repair businesses and consumer reporting agencies such that both, in this case, are accusing the other of excesses and improprieties which have nothing directly to do with this case.
It seems quite clear that A-1 was probably utilizing information it received about Millsaps and Stansbury for its credit repair business and did improperly disclose the information it received to the consumers. However, according to an affidavit filed by Pearl Polto, President of A-1, both Millsaps and Stansbury were insurance clients of A-1 during the relevant period. In addition, there is some evidence that the consumers Millsaps and Stansbury may have obtained their credit reports directly from Trans Union, as permitted under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Thus, a genuine issue of fact arises as to whether A-1 did violate the agreement with Trans Union and whether there was just cause for the immediate cancellation of the agreement. Consequently, genuine issues of fact exist as to whether in terminating the agreement, Trans Union was in breach of the contract. If the affidavit of Pearl Polto proves to be false, Trans Union would not be without remedy.
However, the breach of contract claim for improper termination appears to be much ado about nothing. The contract expressly provides that either party may, with or without reason, cancel the agreement upon ten days' notice prior to the end of any monthly billing period. Thus, the only damages could be for the premature cancellation which would be limited to any provable profits that A-1 lost between the date of the cancellation and the ten-day notice period. The lost profits would have to be caused by lost insurance business that A-1 would otherwise have obtained but did not obtain because it could not have access to Trans Union's consumer credit reports. Because such reports can be obtained from other sources, such as the request of the consumer directly to Trans Union, plaintiff's damages, at most, would be minimal.
Because the breach of contract claim is a pendent claim, and because plaintiff's damages could not exceed $ 10,000.00, it might be appropriate to dismiss this claim, except that: (a) the case was removed by defendant to this court from state court, and (b) to remand this minor contract claim after the case has been decided under this court's local arbitration rule and appealed to this court would be time consuming and wasteful to all interested parties.
Plaintiff unsuccessfully argues that because there is implied in every contract a covenant of good faith dealing with the other, Trans Union could not unilaterally terminate the agreement despite the ten days' notice clause. The cases cited by plaintiff are inapplicable. They involve service station franchises, manufacturer's sales representative agreements, financing agreements or cases from other jurisdictions. In all of the cases, the terminated party had expended substantial capital on the basis of a long term contract and could not conveniently obtain replacement services elsewhere. This is quite different from the present case where defendant terminated an agreement to provide the plaintiff, for a fee, its confidential consumer credit reports. The written agreement expressly provided that either party could cancel on ten days' notice. There is no reason to rewrite the agreement, freely entered into by the parties, on some nebulous public policy ground that has not been recognized by the Courts of Pennsylvania.
All that has been written thus far has very little to do with the real dispute between the parties. As plaintiff, A-1, sets forth on the second page (unnumbered) of its brief in support of its motion for summary judgment:
The central question in this case is whether consumers may delegate their rights under the Act to third parties when obtaining credit records and making disputes concerning the accuracy of information in their credit files.