Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D received a credit account application in P's name from a telemarketing company. The application listed an address that P has never resided and could have been easily verified. D issued a credit card bearing P's name to an unknown and unauthorized individual. D did not attempt to verify whether the information contained in the credit account application was authentic and accurate. The unknown and unauthorized individual charged $864.00 exceeding the account's $500.00 credit limit. No payments were made. D, without investigating whether the account was obtained using a stolen identity, declared the account delinquent and transferred the account to a debt collection agency. D also notified various credit reporting agencies that the account was delinquent. The agency hired an attorney, who discovered P's actual address. The attorney, in a letter dated November 29, 2004, notified P of the delinquent account and requested payment. P contacted the attorney to inquire about the account but was told that he would receive information about the account in thirty (30) days. P never received any further information. Five years later, P applied for a job with a bank but was not hired due to his poor credit score. P contacted D numerous times to dispute the delinquent account but was unable to obtain any 'adequate or real explanation' from D. D mailed a notice of arbitration proceedings to the address listed on the credit account application, which resulted in an arbitration award against P. D continues to list the credit account bearing P’s name as delinquent and has not corrected the information provided to credit reporting agencies regarding the account. P never received any further information. P sued D. P claimed that D had a duty to verify the accuracy of the application before issuing credit, and to investigate before turning the account over for collection and reporting it to credit reporting agencies. D moved to dismiss claiming it had no duty to prevent criminal acts of third parties. .

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.