BOYKO v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. et al

Filing 116

ORDER granting 73 Motion to Certify Class; granted and denied 74 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 75 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting 77 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granted and denied 79 Motion for Summary Judgment ; grant ed and denied 90 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granted and denied 95 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 98 Motion for Summary Judgment ; denying 108 Motion for Leave to File; denying 112 Motion for Leave to File; denying 113 Motion. AIG shall be DISMISSED as a party to this case. Signed by Judge Robert B. Kugler on 4/26/2012. (drw)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

(Doc. Nos. 73, 74, 75, 77, 79, 90, 95, 98, 108, 112, 113)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
___________________________________
:
VICTOR BOYKO, individually and on
:
behalf of all others similarly situated,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
Civil No. 08-2214 (RBK/JS)
:
v.
:
ORDER
:
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
:
GROUP, INC., AMERICAN
:
INTERNATIONAL INSURANCE
:
COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, INC.,
:
AIG MARKETING, INC. d/b/a
:
:
21st CENTURY INSURANCE, and
CREDIT CONTROL SERVICES
:
d/b/a, CREDIT COLLECTION
:
SERVICES and C.C.S.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
___________________________________ :
THIS MATTER having come before the Court upon the Motion for Class Certification
by Plaintiff Victor Boyko on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated (Doc.
No. 73); and the cross-motions for summary judgment by Plaintiff and Defendants American
International Group, Inc. (“AIG”), American International Insurance Company of New Jersey,
Inc. (“AIICNJ”), AIG Marketing, Inc. d/b/a 21st Century Insurance (“AIG Marketing”), and
Credit Control Services d/b/a, Credit Collection Services and C.C.S. (“CCS”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) (Doc. Nos. 74, 75, 77, 79, 90, 95, 98); and the cross-motions for leave to file
supplements to the record by Plaintiff and Defendants (Doc. Nos. 108, 112, 113); and the Court
having considered the supporting papers and the responses thereto;

IT IS ORDERED that, for the reasons expressed in the Opinion issued this date,
Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ cross-motions for leave to file supplements to the record by Plaintiff
and Defendants (Doc. Nos. 108, 112, 113) are DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (Doc. No.
73) is GRANTED only as to the following classes:
1. A New Jersey class as to Defendant AIICNJ (“the AIICNJ class”), on the claims
for breach of contract and Truth-in-Consumer-Contract-Warranty and Notice Act,
as follows:
All natural persons who, like Plaintiff, were insured by AIICNJ whose business
was administered by AIGM during the period from six years prior to the filing of
the complaint on May 8, 2008 to the date of class certification, whose policy
contained an automatic termination provision substantially similar to the
provision of Plaintiff’s policy, whose policies expired and were not renewed, and
who thereafter received and paid a bill for premium for the new term following
the expiration of their policy due to a Cancel & Reinstate transaction.
2. A national class as to CCS (“the CCS class”), for all persons who received a bill and
made a payment as to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), as follows:
All natural persons in the United States, excepting the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Massachusetts, Ohio and Rhode Island, who, like Plaintiff, were insured
by a company whose business was administered by AIGM and la[t]er serviced by
CCS for collections during the period from one year prior to the filing of the
complaint on May 8, 2008 to the date of class certification, whose policy
contained an automatic termination provision substantially similar to the
provision of Plaintiff’s policy, whose policies expired and were not renewed, and
who thereafter received and paid a bill for premium for the new term following
the expiration of their policy due to a Cancel & Reinstate transaction.
3. For the purposes of the above two classes, a “Cancel & Reinstate” transaction for the
purpose of Plaintiff’s class action lawsuit is defined as follows:
Cancel & Reinstate – This category consists of those policies where the billing was
issued due to a manual cancellation and reinstatement of a policy by a customer service
advocate, which actions led to the bypass of the automatic termination mechanism in
Defendants’ billing system.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the
Breach of Contract claim (Doc. Nos. 74 and 95) is GRANTED, and AIICNJ’s cross-motion for
summary judgment on the Breach of Contract claim (Doc. No. 79) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the
Negligence claim (Doc. Nos. 74, 90, 95, and 98) is DENIED in all respects, that AIICNJ and
AIG’s motions for summary judgment on the Negligence claim (Doc. Nos. 77 and 79) are
GRANTED, and that AIGM’s motion for summary judgment on the Negligence claim (Doc. No.
79) is DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the
Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim (Doc. Nos. 74, 90, and 95) is DENIED in all respects, and
that AIICNJ’s motion for summary judgment on the Good Faith and Fair Dealing claim (Doc.
No. 79) is GRANTED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the
Consumer Fraud Act (“CFA”) claim (Doc. Nos. 74, 90, 95 and 98) is DENIED in all respects,
that AIG’s motion for summary judgment on the CFA claim (Doc. No. 77) is GRANTED, that
AIGM and AIICNJ’s joint motion for summary judgment on the CFA claim (Doc. No. 79) is
DENIED, and that CCS’s motion for summary judgment on the CFA claim (Doc. No. 75) is
DENIED; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the
Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) claim (Doc. Nos. 74, 90,
and 95) is GRANTED with respect to AIGM and AIICNJ, and DENIED as to AIG, and that
AIG’s cross-motion for summary judgment on the TCCWNA claim (Doc. No. 77) is GRANTED;
and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim (Doc. Nos. 74 and 98) is GRANTED as to
CCS’s liability for violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(14) (failure to use “true name” during debt
collection), and DENIED as to CCS’s liability for violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c) (attempting to
collect debt not “expressly authorized by the agreement creating the debt”), and that CCS’s
motion for summary judgment on the FDCPA claim (Doc. No. 75) is DENIED in all respects;
and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that AIG shall be dismissed as a party to this case.

Date: 4/26/12

/s/ Robert B. Kugler
ROBERT B. KUGLER
United States District Judge