Full text
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
1/31
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
Case No.: 1:24-cv-24072-KMW
GUIDO ANTONIO ABREU,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC.,
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendants.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Guido Antonio Abreu (“Plaintiff”) brings this action on an individual basis, against
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. (“LNRS”) and Progressive American Insurance Company
(“Progressive”) (collectively “Defendants”) for actual, statutory, and punitive damages and costs,
and attorney’s fees, for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681,
et. seq., arising out of LNRS’ mixing Plaintiff’s file with another consumer.
INTRODUCTION
1.
The computerization of our society has resulted in a revolutionary increase in the
accumulation and processing of data concerning individual American consumers. Data
technology, whether it is used by businesses, banks, the Internal Revenue Service or other
institutions, allows information concerning individual consumers to flow instantaneously to
requesting parties. Such timely information is intended to lead to faster and better decision-making
by its recipients and, in theory, all of society should ultimately benefit from the resulting
convenience and efficiency.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 1 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
2/31
2.
However, unfortunately this information has also become readily available for, and
subject to, mishandling and misuse. Individual consumers can and do sustain substantial damage,
both economically and emotionally, whenever inaccurate or fraudulent information is
disseminated and/or obtained about them. In fact, the LNRS acknowledges this potential for
misuse and resulting damage every time it sells its claims history services to a consumer.
3.
The ongoing technological advances in the area of data processing have resulted in
a boon for the companies that accumulate and sell data concerning individuals’ credit histories and
other personal information. Such companies are commonly known as consumer reporting agencies
(“CRAs”).
4.
These CRAs sell information to readily paying subscribers (i.e., retailers, landlords,
lenders, potential employers, and other similar interested parties), commonly called "consumer
reports," concerning individuals who may be applying for retail credit, housing, employment, or a
car or mortgage loan.
5.
Since 1970, when Congress enacted the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., federal
law has required CRAs to implement and utilize reasonable procedures “to assure maximum
possible accuracy” of the personal, private, and financial information that they compile and sell
about individual consumers.
6.
“Credit is the lifeblood of the modern American economy, and for the American
consumer access to credit has become inextricably tied to consumer credit scores as reported by
credit reporting agencies.” Burke v. Lexis Info. Sols., Inc., 2011 WL 1085874, at *1 (E.D. Va. Mar.
18, 2011).
7.
Congress made the following findings when it enacted the FCRA in 1970:
(a)
The banking system is dependent upon fair and accurate credit reporting.
Inaccurate credit reports directly impair the efficiency of the banking
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 2 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
3/31
system, and unfair credit reporting methods undermine the public
confidence which is essential to the continued functioning of the banking
system.
(b)
An elaborate mechanism has been developed for investigating and
evaluating the credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character,
and general reputation of consumers.
(c)
Consumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and
evaluating consumer credit and other information on consumers.
(d)
There is a need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies exercise their
grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a respect for the
consumer’s right to privacy.
15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(1-4).
8.
Thus, one of the fundamental purposes of the FCRA is “to require that consumer
reporting agencies adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer
credit, personnel, insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the
consumer, with regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such
information in accordance with the requirements of this subchapter.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
Accordingly, “[t]he FCRA evinces Congress’ intent that consumer reporting agencies, having the
opportunity to reap profits through the collection and dissemination of credit information, bear
‘grave responsibilities.’” Cushman v. Trans Union, 115 F.3d 220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997).
9.
The preservation of one's good name and reputation is also at the heart of the
FCRA’s purposes:
[W]ith the trend toward computerization of billings and the establishment of all
sorts of computerized data banks, the individual is in great danger of having his life
and character reduced to impersonal “blips” and key-punch holes in a stolid and
unthinking machine which can literally ruin his reputation without cause, and make
him unemployable or uninsurable, as well as deny him the opportunity to obtain a
mortgage or buy a home. We are not nearly as much concerned over the possible
mistaken turn-down of a consumer for a luxury item as we are over the possible
destruction of his good name without his knowledge and without reason.
Shakespeare said, the loss of one's good name is beyond price and makes one poor
indeed.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 3 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
4/31
Bryant v. TRW, Inc., 689 F.2d 72, 79 (6th Cir. 1982) [quoting 116 cong. Rec. 36570 (1970)]
(emphasis added).
10.
Since 1970, when Congress enacted the FCRA, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et.
seq., the federal law has required CRAs to have in place and to utilize reasonable procedures “to
assure the maximum possible accuracy” of the personal and financial information that they
compile and sell about individual consumers.
11.
The FCRA also requires CRAs to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation to determine
whether information disputed by consumers is inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before the end of the 30-day period
beginning on the date on which the CRA receives the notice of dispute from the consumer. This
mandate exists to ensure that consumer disputes are handled in a timely manner and that inaccurate
information contained within a consumer’s credit report is corrected and/or deleted so as to not
prevent said consumer from benefiting from his or his credit and obtaining new credit.
12.
In light of these important findings and purposes, Congress specifically noted “a
need to insure that [CRAs] exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and
respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” See 15 U. S.C. § 1681(a)(4).
13.
The FCRA also requires furnishers of information, a creditor or other third party
that provides information about consumer to a CRA, upon notice, to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation of all disputes with regard to the completeness or accuracy of any information it
provides to the CRAs regarding a consumer and modify, delete, or permanently block any items
of information found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable after said reinvestigation is
completed.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 4 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
5/31
14.
A recurring and known issue within the credit reporting industry is the creation of
“mixed files.”
15.
A “mixed file” occurs when personal and credit information belonging to Consumer
B appears in one or more of Consumer A’s credit files.
16.
“Mixed files” create a false description and representation of a consumer’s credit
history.
17.
The Federal Trade Commission defined a mixed credit file as a file that “refers to
a Consumer Report in which some or all of the information pertains to Persons other than the
Person who is subject to that Consumer Report.” F.T.C. v. TRW, Inc., 784 F. Supp. 361, 362 (N.D.
Tex. 1991).
18.
Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. LNRS has been on notice of the existence
of mixed files, and the fact that its procedures for creating consumer files, including its matching
algorithms, are prone to frequently cause mixed files, for over thirty (30) years. See Thompson v.
San Antonia Retail Merchants Ass’n, 682 F.2d 509, 511 (5th Cir. 1982).
19.
More recently, LNRS has been the subject of numerous state attorney general
actions relating to its mixed file problem.
20.
For example, in 2015, the New York Attorney General filed charges and settled
claims with other CRAs over mixed files.1 See In the Matter of Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney
General of the State of New York v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax Information
Services, LLC; and Trans Union LLC.
1 https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2015-ag-schneiderman-announces-groundbreaking-consumer-
protection-settlement-three Last visited May 17, 2022; see also https://ag-
ny.gov/pdfs/CRA%20Agreement%20Fully%20Executed%203.8.15.pdf Last visited May 17,
2022.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 5 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
6/31
21.
Notwithstanding LNRS’ notice and being subject to repeated enforcement actions,
mixed files continue to occur despite consumers’ unique personal identifying information, such as
Social Security numbers, date of birth, and addresses.
22.
Another consequence of mixed files is the resulting disclosure of a consumer’s most
personal identifying and financial information absent the consumer’s knowledge or consent, or
both. This occurs when a consumer’s file is mixed with that of another consumer, and either of
those consumers applies for credit, housing, insurance, or employment, and LNRS sells
information pertaining to one consumer in response to the application of the other.
23.
LNRS has been sued thousands of times wherein an allegation was made that LNRS
violated the FCRA. Moreover, LNRS is sued, at a minimum, hundreds of times each year wherein
an allegation is made that LNRS mixed a consumer’s file with that of another consumer.
24.
FCRA lawsuits have resulted in multi-million-dollar verdicts for consumers who
fall victim to a mixed credit file.
25.
For example, in 2002, the jury in Judy Thomas v. Trans Union LLC, District of
Oregon, Case NO. 00-1150-JE, found Trans Union had willfully violated the FCRA by mixing
Judy Thomas’s personal and credit information with another consumer’s and failing to unmix them
despite Ms. Thomas’ numerous disputes. The jury awarded Ms. Thomas $300,000.00 in actual
damages and $5,000,000.00 in punitive damages.
26.
In 2007, the jury in Angela Williams v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, Circuit
Court for Orange County Florida, Case No. 48-2003-CA-9035-0, awarded Angela Williams
$219,000.00 in actual damages and $2,700,000.00 in punitive damages for willfully violating the
FCRA by mixing Angela Williams with another consumer and failing to unmix them despite Ms.
Williams’ disputes.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 6 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
7/31
27.
In 2013, the jury in Julie Miller v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, District of
Oregon, Case No. 3:11-cv-01231-BR, awarded Julie Miller $180,000.00 in actual damages and
more than $18,000,000.00 in punitive damages for willfully violating the FCRA by mixing Julie
Miller with another consumer and failing to unmix them despite Ms. Miller’ numerous disputes.
28.
More recently, a jury assessed a $60 million dollar verdict against Trans Union for
mixing innocent persons as terrorists and drug dealers by matching consumers with the Office of
Foreign Asset Control’s “terrorist alert” list based on first and last name alone. See Ramirez v.
Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-CV-00632-JSC, 2017 WL 5153280, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017),
aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part sub nom. Ramirez v. TransUnion, LLC, 951 F.3d 1008
(9th Cir. 20020).
29.
“Evidence that a defendant has repeatedly engaged in prohibited conduct while
knowing or suspecting that it was unlawful would provide relevant support for an argument that
strong evidence is required to cure the defendant’s disrespect for the law.” Dalton v. CAI, 257 F.3d
409, 418 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that whether “other consumers have lodged complaints similar to
Dalton’s against CAI” is relevant to willfulness under the FCRA). Moreover, repeated
noncompliance with statutory duties can establish that the defendants acted willfully. See Safeco
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47, 53 (2007) (punitive damages can be awarded based on
“reckless disregard for a statutory duty”).
30.
No less than three federal Courts of Appeal have held a consumer reporting agency
violates 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) and may be found to have willfully violated the FCRA when it mixes
a consumer’s file with another consumer.
31.
Notably, the Federal Trade Commission has specifically warned consumer
reporting agencies, including LNRS, to review their procedures when a mixed file occurs.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 7 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
8/31
32.
Despite federal and state law, Congressional mandate, federal and state
enforcement actions, and thousands of consumer lawsuits, mixed files remain a significant
problem for innocent consumers, including Plaintiff.
33.
Plaintiff’s claims arise out of LNRS’ blatantly inaccurate insurance claims history
reporting, wherein LNRS published in a consumer report about Plaintiff the information of another
consumer because LNRS mixed Plaintiff’s insurance claims file with that of an unrelated
consumer.
34.
Further, Plaintiff’s claims also arise out of LNRS’ blatantly inaccurate insurance
claims reporting, wherein LNRS permitted the impermissible access to Plaintiff’s credit file when
it published a consumer report about Plaintiff in response to an insurance claim submitted by and
pertaining to an unrelated consumer because LNRS mixed Plaintiff’s insurance claims file with
that of an unrelated consumer.
35.
Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims against LNRS for failing to follow reasonable
procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of Plaintiffs insurance claims reports, in
violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b); and for failing to conduct a reasonable
reinvestigation to determine whether information Plaintiff disputed was inaccurate and in fact, the
product of a mixed file, and for failing to delete the disputed information from Plaintiff’s insurance
claims file, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i.
36.
Further, Plaintiff also brings claims against the Furnisher, Progressive, for failing
to conduct a reasonable investigation to determine whether the information Plaintiff disputed did
in fact belong to another consumer and for failing to delete the disputed information from
Plaintiff’s insurance claims file, in violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2b.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 8 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
9/31
37.
As part of this action, Plaintiff seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages, costs
and attorneys' fees from Defendants for its willful and/or negligent violations of the FCRA, 15
U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as described herein.
PARTIES
38.
Guido Antonio Abreu (“Plaintiff”) is a natural person residing in Miami, Florida,
and is a “consumer” as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
39.
LNRS is a corporation doing business throughout the United States, including the
State of Florida and in this District, and has a principal place of business located at 1000 Alderman
Drive, Alpharetta, Georgia 30005. LNRS can be served at its registered agent, C T Corporation
System, located at 1200 South Pine Island Road, Plantation, FL 33324.
40.
LNRS is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f). LNRS
is regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and disseminating information
concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. §
1681a(d), to third parties.
41.
The information LNRS collects through their C.L.U.E. database, maintains, and
sells includes confidential details about the name, date of birth and policy number in addition to
claim details such as date of loss, claim type, amounts paid, fault details and vehicle information.
LNRS also collects consumers’ personal identifiers, such as Social Security Numbers (“SSNs”),
telephone numbers, and addresses.
42.
LNRS collects and maintains such information about consumers, whether
consumers like it or not. Consumers do not have a choice as to whether LNRS collects and
maintains information about them. Not only that, but consumers cannot remove information that
LNRS collects and maintains about them from the CLUE database. Further, LNRS sells that
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 9 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
10/31
information about consumers for its unilateral profit, none of which is shared with the Plaintiff,
who is the subject of the very data that LNRS sold.
43.
Defendant Progressive American Insurance Company (“Progressive”) is an Ohio
Corporation with a principal place of business located at 6300 Wilson Mills Road, Mayfield, Ohio
44143, and is authorized to do business in the State of Florida, including within this District.
Progressive can be served at its registered agent c/o Chief Financial Officer, 200 E. Gaines Street,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399.
44.
Progressive is a “Furnisher” as defined in 12 CFR 1022.41. Progressive regularly
furnishes information relating to consumers to one or more consumer reporting agencies for
inclusion in a consumer report. A data furnisher, such as Progressive, is an entity that reports
information about consumers to consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), which may include credit
bureaus, tenant screening companies, check verification services, and medical information
services, insurance claim history services, etc. Like CRAs and data users, data furnishers have
legal obligations and rules that must be upheld & followed pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2b of
the FCRA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
45.
This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows claims under the FCRA to be brought in any appropriate court
of competent jurisdiction.
46.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this District.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 10 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
11/31
SUMMARY OF THE FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT
47.
The FCRA governs the conduct of consumer reporting agencies in an effort to
preserve the integrity of the consumer banking system and to protect the rights of consumers to
fairness and accuracy in the reporting of their credit information.
48.
The FCRA was designed to protect consumers from the harmful effects of
inaccurate information reported in consumer reports. Thus, Congress enshrined the principles of
“fair and accurate credit reporting” and the “need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies
exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness” in the very first provision of the FCRA. See 15
U.S.C. § 1681(a).
49.
Specifically, the statute was intended to ensure that “consumer reporting agencies
adopt reasonable procedures for meeting the needs of commerce for consumer credit, personnel,
insurance, and other information in a manner which is fair and equitable to the consumer, with
regard to the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper utilization of such information. See
15 U.S.C. § 1681(b).
50.
To that end, the FCRA imposes the following twin duties on consumer reporting
agencies: (i) consumer reporting agencies must devise and implement reasonable procedures to
ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of information contained in consumer reports (15 U.S.C.
§ 1681e(b)); and (ii) consumer reporting agencies must reinvestigate the facts and circumstances
surrounding a consumer’s dispute and timely correct any inaccuracies (15 U.S.C. § 1681i).
51.
The FCRA provides consumers with a private right of action against consumer
reporting agencies that willfully or negligently fail to comply with their statutory obligations under
the FCRA.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 11 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
12/31
LNRS’ PROCESSING OF CONSUMER INFORMATION
52.
LNRS regularly receives information from various sources around the country
including banks, credit unions, automobile dealers, student loan providers, insurance companies,
public information vendors, and others.
53.
These sources are known as “furnishers” within the credit and insurance claims
reporting industry and under the FCRA.
54.
LNRS collects information from thousands of furnishers.
55.
The process by which LNRS receives, sorts, and stores information is largely
electronic.
56.
LNRS takes insurance information reported by furnishers and creates consumer
claims history files.
57.
LNRS maintains insurance claims history on more than 200 million consumers.
58.
Claims history files are updated electronically by the furnishers to reflect new
information regarding the reported insurance claims.
LNRS’ MIXED FILE PROBLEM
59.
LNRS knows that different consumers have similar names.
60.
LNRS knows that different consumers can have similar Social Security numbers.
61.
LNRS knows that different consumers with similar names can also have similar
SSNs.
62.
LNRS knows that public records often do contain identifying information such as
SSNs or dates of birth.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 12 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
13/31
63.
LNRS matches insurance claims and public records to a consumer file by
comparing the information about the consumer associated with the insurance claim or public
record to the information they maintain about the consumer in the consumer’s files.
64.
LNRS accomplishes this matching of insurance claims information to consumer
files through the use of certain matching algorithms or database rules.
65.
From time to time, LNRS’ matching algorithms match information belonging to
one consumer to the file of another consumer; resulting in what’s commonly known as a mixed or
merged file.
66.
Mixed files are not a new phenomenon. In fact, as long ago as the early 1990s, the
Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) (the government agency charged with enforcement of the
FCRA), entered into individual Consent Decrees with each of the major CRAs, specifically
including LNRS, regarding its significant failures and deficiencies with respect to mixed files.
67.
Despite LNRS’ long-standing and specific knowledge of the mixed file problem,
Plaintiff’s insurance claims report was still generated by LNRS; containing information belonging
to another consumer.
68.
A mixed or merged file is the result of LNRS’ inaccurately mixing personal
identifying information and claims history and/or an entire insurance claim file belonging to one
consumer into the insurance claims file of another consumer.
69.
There are many different possible causes for the mixing of consumer files but all of
them relate in one way or another to the algorithms and/or database rules used by LNRS to match
personal identifying information and consumer information, including public record information,
to a particular consumers’ file.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 13 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
14/31
70.
The success or failure of these algorithms or rules is both a function of the rules
themselves and of the information provided by the furnishers of the tradeline information to LNRS.
71.
A mixed consumer report could be caused by an improper algorithm just as it could
be caused by the inaccurate reporting of a consumer’s personal “indicative” information (e.g.,
name, Social Security number, address, date of birth, etc.) by the furnishers to LNRS.
72.
LNRS knows that data from furnishers is sometimes reported or entered
inaccurately, processed poorly or incorrectly, and is generally not free from defect.
73.
The database rules determine which files are deemed reliable and selected by the
algorithm and merged to create a complete consumer report.
74.
Therefore, a mixed consumer report is sometimes the result of the mixing of two or
more consumer files belonging to different consumers into one consumer report.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff is Falsely Reported as Having Been Involved in an Accident
75.
In or around April or May 2023, Plaintiff received a call from Defendant
Progressive’s claims adjuster asking if he was involved in an accident while operating a Toyota
Corolla.
76.
Plaintiff let the claims adjuster know that he was not involved in any accident and
does not own a Toyota Corolla.
77.
On or about May 11, 2023, Plaintiff renewed his car insurance with Progressive for
$3,303 for 6 months, which was an increase of approximately $591 from his previous 6-month
term.
78.
At the time of the renewal, Plaintiff did not know that the rate increase was due to
any errors involving his driving history.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 14 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
15/31
79.
However, in or around the beginning of June 2023, Plaintiff viewed his Progressive
policy through their mobile application and discovered that he was listed as a driver on a separate
policy ending in 2395 that was not his and that he did not recognize. Plaintiff’s policy with
Progressive ended in 9535.
Plaintiff Disputes the Inaccurate Progressive Account
80.
Upon discovering this error, Plaintiff immediately called and disputed the
information with Progressive Insurance.
81.
Plaintiff specifically identified the Progressive Account ending in 2359 as not
belonging to him.
82.
Along with the phone call, Plaintiff sent Progressive a copy of his driver’s license,
and all the necessary documentation to support his dispute.
83.
Plaintiff requested that Progressive reinvestigate the disputed information and
remove him from the incorrect policy.
84.
On or about June 8, 2023, Plaintiff received an email from a Progressive
representative that confirmed he was mistakenly added to the incorrect policy and that the error
was being corrected.
85.
Plaintiff replied to confirm that he has no connection with this policy ending in
2395 and that his policy is the one ending in 9535.
86.
Sometime in July 2023, Plaintiff stopped seeing the incorrect policy on his
Progressive account and he was relieved believing that this ordeal was behind him.
87.
However, in or around December 2023, Plaintiff received a renewal quote from
Progressive for his policy for the period from December 2023 to June 2024 and was shocked to
find that his rate had again not only increased again but increased substantially.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 15 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
16/31
88.
Progressive quoted Plaintiff at $4,132 for 6 months of coverage. The increase of
$829 from the previous 6-month policy and $1,420 increase from the policy before, was shocking
to Plaintiff as he had no reason to suspect that his insurance rates were going to skyrocket. Plaintiff
was a very careful and diligent driver and was disappointed to see his efforts fail to prevent an
increase in his insurance rates.
89.
Aside from Plaintiff’s stellar driving history, the other insured drivers have also not
been involved in any accidents or moving violations that could have caused an increase in his
insurance rates.
90.
Due to this unjustified increase, Plaintiff decided to solicit different quotes from an
online insurance website and directly from State Farm.
91.
Plaintiff continued his search for car insurance, where he was finally able to secure
insurance from Allstate for $3,010.78 for 6 months
Plaintiff Searches for a New Insurance Provider
92.
In or around December 2023, Plaintiff requested a quote from State Farm
Insurance, which also quoted Plaintiff at an unreasonably high rate.
93.
Plaintiff was shocked and dismayed at the high cost of the car insurance because
Plaintiff and all other insured drivers were safe drivers and have not been involved in any accidents
or moving violations.
Plaintiff’s Mixed File as of December 2023
94.
Confused as to why his rates were suddenly rising, Plaintiff asked the State Farm
representative why his rate was so high. The representative informed Plaintiff that the high rate
was due to a previous claim made by Plaintiff. The representative suggested Plaintiff file a dispute
to correct the inaccurate reporting.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 16 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
17/31
95.
Plaintiff was shocked and disappointed that the claim and inaccurate policy were
continuing to be associated with him.
96.
Plaintiff immediately called Progressive’s customer service line to request that the
error be corrected. Progressive’s agent directed Plaintiff to file a dispute with LNRS.
97.
Plaintiff was extremely upset with Defendant Progressive’s handling of this issue
because he had been a loyal customer for over 14 years.
98.
In or around December 2023, Plaintiff secured a copy of his consumer report from
LNRS.
99.
Upon reviewing the contents of the December 2023 LNRS report, Plaintiff was
confused by the appearance of several pieces of information that did not belong to Plaintiff at all.
100.
Specifically, LNRS was reporting the following account and claim which did not
belong to Plaintiff:
(a)
Name: Guido Abreu
Driver's License Number: XXXXX80612930
Date of Birth: 8/XX/1961
Gender: Female
Policy number: 935332359AA092001
Carrier: Progressive
Inception Date: 01/14/2020
CA Start Date: 01/14/2024
End Date: 07/14/2024
AMBest Number: 090515
(b)
Claim Number: 239131335
Claim Disposition: Closed
Claim Amount: 25000
Claim Type: Bodily Injury
Claim Amount: 8415
Claim Type: Property Damage
Make/Model: TOYOTA COROLLA
VIN: JTDBU4EEXAJ064972
Model Year: 2010
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 17 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
18/31
101.
Further, LNRS was reporting multiple addresses that Plaintiff had never been
associated with.
102.
LNRS was reporting other individuals on the policy that Plaintiff had never been
associated with.
103.
LNRS was also reporting insurance records associated with addresses neither
Plaintiff, his wife, or his sons have never been associated with.
104.
By reporting the aforementioned insurance claims and other personal identifying
information in the consumer report presumably about Plaintiff, despite the fact that the insurance
claims and information do not belong to Plaintiff or anyone under Plaintiff’s insurance plan, LNRS
failed to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information
contained within Plaintiff’s consumer reports, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).
Plaintiff Disputes the Inaccurate Reporting with LNRS
105.
In or around December 2023, worried about the information of another consumer
on his LNRS consumer report, Plaintiff disputed the inaccurate information with LNRS. Upon
information and belief, Plaintiff disputed via telephone.
106.
Plaintiff disputed the mixed information that was readily identifiable to him on the
LNRS report.
107.
Specifically, Plaintiff disputed information that did not belong to him, including the
driving records, insurance policies, and insurance claims.
108.
In addition to disputing with LNRS, Plaintiff hired a private investigator to prove
that the individual involved in the accident was not Plaintiff so that the inaccurate information
would be removed from his report. Plaintiff paid the private investigator approximately $1,470.
Plaintiff wanted
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 18 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
19/31
109.
The private investigator produced a report to Plaintiff on or around January 5, 2024,
which included a copy of the police report for the accident that was being included on Plaintiff’s
LNRS report. The report identified the driver associated with the accident as an individual named
Guido Abreu that had a similar driver’s license number to Plaintiff and different date of birth. The
individual that was being mixed with Plaintiff also had prior traffic violations and Plaintiff was
worried that these records would also be associated with him.
LNRS’ Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation
110.
In or around December 2023, Defendant LNRS received Plaintiff’s phone dispute
and request to remove the mixed information from his consumer report.
111.
Upon information and belief, Defendant LNRS forwarded Plaintiff’s dispute to
Defendant Progressive.
112.
Defendant LNRS failed to respond to Plaintiff’s dispute and failed to adequately
review all the information provided to it by Plaintiff.
113.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to
follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the insurance claims
history it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
114.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable
investigation of Plaintiff’s December 2023 dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to
determine whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
115.
In or around late January, Plaintiff obtained a copy of his LexisNexis report dated
January 24, 2024, to see if Lexis had corrected the report based on his dispute, but the
information continued to be reported with no changes.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 19 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
20/31
Plaintiff’s Second Dispute to LNRS
116.
Accordingly, in or around January 2024, Plaintiff filed a dispute through the
LexisNexis online portal.
117.
Plaintiff included all the necessary documentation to support his dispute.
118.
Plaintiff requested that LNRS reinvestigate the disputed information and remove
the incorrect information from his report.
LNRS’ Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation
119.
In or around January 2024, Defendant LNRS received Plaintiff’s online dispute and
request to remove the mixed information from his consumer report.
120.
Upon information and belief, Defendant LNRS forwarded Plaintiff’s dispute to
Defendant Progressive.
121.
Defendant LNRS failed to respond to Plaintiff’s dispute and failed to adequately
review all the information provided to it by Plaintiff.
122.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the insurance claims history it
published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
123.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable
investigation of Plaintiff’s January 2024 dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine
whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
124.
In or around mid-February, Plaintiff obtained a copy of his LexisNexis report
dated February 13, 2024, to confirm whether Lexis had corrected the report based on his dispute,
but the information continued to be reported with no changes.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 20 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
21/31
Plaintiff’s Third Dispute to LNRS
125.
On or about March 13, 2024, Plaintiff submitted an online dispute with Defendant
LNRS, disputing the inaccuracies for a third time. Plaintiff also copied Defendant Progressive on
this dispute.
126.
Plaintiff included all the necessary documentation to support his dispute.
127.
Plaintiff attached the June 8, 2023, email from Progressive in which the Progressive
representative acknowledged that this was a merge on their end and that once he is removed from
the policy, the merge will disappear.
128.
Plaintiff requested that LNRS reinvestigate the disputed information and remove
the incorrect information from his report.
LNRS’ Unreasonable Dispute Reinvestigation
129.
On or about March 13, 2024, Defendant LNRS received Plaintiff’s email dispute
and request to remove the missed information from his consumer report.
130.
Upon information and belief, Defendant LNRS forwarded Plaintiff’s dispute to
Defendant Progressive.
131.
Defendant LNRS failed to respond to Plaintiff’s dispute and failed to adequately
review all the information provided to it by Plaintiff.
132.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the insurance claims history it
published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
133.
Defendant LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable
investigation of Plaintiff’s March 2024 dispute, or any reinvestigation whatsoever, to determine
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 21 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
22/31
whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the disputed
information, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)(A).
134.
On or about May 12, 2024, Plaintiff obtained a copy of his LexisNexis report to see
if Lexis had corrected the report based on his dispute, but the information continued to be reported
with no changes.
Plaintiff Renews His Insurance at Unfavorable Terms
135.
Plaintiff’s Allstate policy was set to expire in June 2024.
136.
Plaintiff was shocked to see an over $1000 increase in his insurance rate for a six-
month policy.
137.
Not wanting to pay the steep increase in price but knowing that all of his other
options for insurance would likely have even less favorable terms due to LNRS’ inaccurate
reporting, Plaintiff renewed his policy.
Plaintiff’s Fourth Dispute to LNRS
138.
On Jun 10, 2024, Plaintiff sent a fourth dispute via physical mail to LexisNexis
Consumer Center requesting LexisNexis to conduct an investigation and remove all information
associated with this policy and claim.
139.
Plaintiff attached all the necessary supporting documents including a copy of his
driver’s license as well as the police report from the accident that resulted in the inaccurate claim.
The letter was delivered On July 18, 2024.
140.
On or about July 27, 2024, LNRS conceded that the records did not belong to
Plaintiff and removed it from his report. Despite removing the accident claim from his report,
LNRS continued to include personal identifiers from the other consumer on his report, which is
very concerning to Plaintiff.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 22 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
23/31
141.
As a result of LNRS’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages
including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private financial information
confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was viewing his private financial
information and how his private financial information was improperly implicated in the insurance
claims of another; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good insurance claims history;
the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; the
expenditure of labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; and
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and
embarrassment of insurance denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying
information and insurance information, including insurance claims and driving records, mixed into
Plaintiff’s file.
Defendant Progressive’s Unreasonable Dispute Investigations
142.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Progressive received Plaintiff’s four
disputes to Defendant LNRS and failed to adequately review all of the information provided to it
by Plaintiff.
143.
Upon information and belief, Defendant Progressive verified the mixed information
as accurate in response to Defendant LNRS inquires.
144.
Defendant Progressive violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2b by failing to conduct a
reasonable investigation with respect to the disputed information, failing to review all relevant
information available to it, and failing to recognize that the disputed information did not belong to
Plaintiff.
Plaintiff Sustained Damages as a Result of Defendants’ Inaccurate Reporting
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 23 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
24/31
145.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff sustained severe emotional distress.
Specifically, Plaintiff has spent an inordinate amount of time, which Plaintiff estimates to be
between 60-80 hours, attempting to correct the error resulting in stress and anxiety caused by the
false reporting by Defendants.
146.
Plaintiff was anxious and frustrated because he did not know how to correct his
LNRS report.
147.
As a result of the “mixed file,” LNRS made it practically impossible for Plaintiff to
obtain reasonably priced insurance.
148.
As a result of the “mixed file,” by LNRS, Plaintiff’s Progressive auto Insurance
costs were increased every time he wished to renew his policy.
149.
At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants were acting by and through their agents,
servants, and/or employees who were acting within the course and scope of their agency or
employment, and under the direct supervision and control of the LNRS herein.
150.
At all times pertinent hereto, Defendants’ conduct, as well as that of its respective
agents, servants, and/or employees, was intentional, willful, reckless, grossly negligent and in utter
disregard for federal law and the rights of Plaintiff herein.
151.
As a standard practice, LNRS does not conduct independent investigations in
response to consumer disputes. Instead, it merely parrots the response of the furnisher, despite
numerous court decisions admonishing this practice. See Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d
220, 225 (3d Cir. 1997) (The ‘grave responsibilit[y]’ imposed by § 1681(a) must consist of
something more than merely parroting information received from other sources. Therefore, a
‘reinvestigation’ that merely shifts the burden back to the consumer and the credit grantor cannot
fulfill the obligations contemplated by the statute.”); Apodaca v. Discover Fin. Servs., 417 F. Supp.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 24 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
25/31
2d 1220, 1230-31 (D.N.M. 2006) (noting that credit reporting agencies may not rely on automated
procedures that make only superficial inquiries once the consumer has notified it that information
is disputed); Gorman v. Experian Info. Sols., Inc., 2008 WL 4934047, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19,
2008).
152.
Defendants are aware of the shortcomings of their procedures and intentionally
chooses not to comply with the FCRA to lower its costs. Accordingly, Defendants’ violations of
the FCRA are willful.
153.
As a result of Defendants’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages
including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private financial information
confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was viewing his private financial
information and how his private financial information was improperly implicated in the insurance
claims of another; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good insurance claims history;
the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; the
expenditure of labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; and
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and
embarrassment of insurance denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying
information and insurance information, including insurance claims and driving records mixed into
Plaintiff’s file.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I
15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
Failure to Follow Reasonable Procedures to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy
(First Claim for Relief Against LNRS)
154.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 25 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
26/31
155.
The FCRA imposes a duty on consumer reporting agencies to devise and implement
procedures to ensure the “maximum possible accuracy” of consumer reports, as follows:
Whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a consumer report, it shall follow
reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information
concerning the individual about whom the report relates.
15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) (emphasis added).
156.
On at least one occasion, LNRS prepared patently false consumer reports
concerning Plaintiff.
157.
LNRS mixed another consumer’s personal information and insurance claims
history into Plaintiff’s file, thereby misrepresenting Plaintiff, and ultimately, Plaintiff’s
insurability.
158.
LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports and
insurance claims history files it published and maintained concerning Plaintiff.
159.
As a result of LNRS’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages
including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private financial information
confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was viewing his private financial
information and how his private financial information was improperly implicated in insurance
claims of another; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good insurance claims history;
the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; the
expenditure of labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; and
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and
embarrassment of insurance denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 26 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
27/31
information and insurance information, including insurance claims and driving records, mixed into
Plaintiff’s file.
160.
LNRS’ conduct, actions, and inactions were willful, rendering them liable for actual
or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, LNRS was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15
U.S.C. § 1681o.
161.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from LNRS in an amount to
be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
COUNT II
15 U.S.C. § 1681i
Failure to Perform a Reasonable Reinvestigation
(Second Claim for Relief Against LNRS)
162.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
163.
The FCRA mandates that LNRS conduct a reasonable reinvestigation of the
accuracy of information “[i]f the completeness or accuracy of any item of information contained
in a consumer’s file” is disputed by the consumer. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1). The FCRA imposes
a 30-day time limit for the completion of such an investigation. Id.
164.
The FCRA provides that if LNRS conducts its reinvestigation of disputed
information and confirms that the information is, in fact, inaccurate or it is unable to otherwise
verify the accuracy of the disputed information, it is required to delete the item of information
from the consumer’s file. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A).
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 27 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
28/31
165.
Plaintiff initiated a dispute with LNRS and disputed inaccurate information
reporting in his file and requested that LNRS correct and/or delete the inaccurate, misleading, and
highly damaging information belonging to an unrelated consumer.
166.
LNRS failed to respond to Plaintiff’s dispute and conducted no investigation of
Plaintiff’s dispute, or such investigation, if any, was so unreasonable as to allow patently false and
highly damaging information to remain in Plaintiff’s file.
167.
LNRS violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681i by failing to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation
to determine whether the disputed information was inaccurate and record the current status of the
disputed information, or delete the disputed information, before the end of the 30-day period
beginning on the date on which it received notice of Plaintiff’s dispute; and by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures with which to filter and verify information in Plaintiff’s files.
168.
As a result of LNRS’ conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff suffered damages
including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private financial information
confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was viewing his private financial
information and how his private financial information was improperly implicated in the insurance
claims of another; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good insurance claims history;
the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; the
expenditure of labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate reporting; and
emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation, and
embarrassment of insurance denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying
information and insurance information, including insurance claims and driving records, mixed into
Plaintiff’s file.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 28 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
29/31
169.
LNRS’ conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering them liable for actual
or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, LNRS was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15
U.S.C. § 1681o.
170.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from LNRS in an amount to
be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
COUNT III
15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2b
Failure to Conduct an Investigation of the Disputed Information and Review of all
Relevant Information Provided by the Consumer
(First Claim for Relief Against Defendant Progressive)
171.
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
172.
Defendant Progressive refused to remove information that belonged to another
consumer.
173.
Defendant Progressive violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b) by failing to investigate
Plaintiff’s dispute(s), or otherwise by failing to fully and properly investigate Plaintiff’s dispute(s),
including but not limited to failing to review all relevant information regarding the same; by failing
to permanently and lawfully correct its own internal records to prevent the re-reporting of the
inaccurate information relating to Plaintiff to the national credit bureaus, including but not limited
to Defendant LNRS; and, by failing to cease furnishing inaccurate information relating to Plaintiff
to the national credit bureaus, including but not limited to Defendant LNRS.
174.
As a result of Defendant Progressive’s conduct, action, and inaction, Plaintiff
suffered damages including but not limited to, the loss of his right to keep his private financial
information confidential; the loss of his right to information about who was viewing his private
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 29 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
30/31
financial information and how his private financial information was improperly implicated in the
insurance claims of another; loss of ability to purchase and benefit from his good insurance claims
history; the expenditure of time and money disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate
reporting; the expenditure of labor and effort disputing and trying to correct the inaccurate
reporting; and emotional distress including the mental and emotional pain, anguish, humiliation,
and embarrassment of insurance denials and having another consumer’s personally identifying
information and insurance information, including insurance claims and driving records, mixed
into Plaintiff’s file.
175.
Defendant Progressive’s conduct, actions, and inactions was willful, rendering
them liable for actual or statutory damages, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined
by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n. Alternatively, Defendant Progressive was negligent,
entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
176.
Plaintiff is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs from Defendant Progressive
in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and/or § 1681o.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief:
i.
Determining that Defendants negligently and/or willfully violated the FCRA;
ii.
Awarding Plaintiff actual, statutory, and punitive damages as provided by the FCRA;
iii.
Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the FCRA; and,
iv.
Granting further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may deem appropriate and just.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 30 of 31
Guido v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc. et al.
Second Amended Complaint
31/31
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 31st day of December 2024.
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM
/s/ Catherine Tillman
Catherine Tillman, Esq., FL #0057663
CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM
8095 N. 85th Way
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
T: (941) 263-7310
F: (480) 613-7733
E: ctillman@consumerjustice.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Guido Antonio Abreu
Case 1:24-cv-24072-KMW Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/31/2024 Page 31 of 31