A federal judge in Pennsylvania has denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by collecting more than what was owed because, even though it was only collecting what it was told to collect by the client, it must be held liable by the FDCPA’s strict liability provisions.
A copy of the ruling in the case of Hylton v. AmeriFinancial Solutions can be accessed by clicking here.
The plaintiff was in a car accident and received treatment at a medical facility. The treatment cost $654. When a payment was not received, the facility placed the account with the defendant for collection. The defendant sent a collection letter to the plaintiff seeking to recover the unpaid amount. However, a law in Pennsylvania limits the financial liability for victims of automobile accidents, so the defendant was only eligible to recover a portion of the $654. The defendant argued it was relying on the information it received from the client in what amount to collect.
The FDCPA can hold a collector liable even without proof of an intentional violation, however.
The defendant attempted to use several precedents to argue its case that it was only doing what it was told, but the judge kept pointing back at the FDCPA’s strict liability provisions. A lack of knowledge or intent is not enough to keep a defendant from violating the FDCPA, the judge wrote.
Because Congress included mens rea language in other areas of the FDCPA but did not include it in Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2)(A) and 1692e(10), it can be inferred that Congress intended not to have those sections covered by mens rea.
The defendant may consider using the bona fide error defense later in the proceedings, the judge wrote, but that defense is not applicable at this stage of the case.
“AmeriFinancial’s argument, in effect, writes a check that the case law does not allow the company to cash,” wrote Judge Gene Pratter in his ruling denying the motion to dismiss.
