Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Submitted March 12, 1990.*
Decided April 4, 1990.
Before SNEED, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ Circuit Judges.
Victor and Ann Krohn appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of appellee, Verex Assurance. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment denovo. Kruso v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir. 1989). We affirm.
The Krohns do not dispute that oral notice was provided them explaining the reason Verex rejected the insurance application. Their only contention is that the written notice required by the Act was not provided. See 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d). Although we are inclined to agree with the district court that a mortgage insurer is not a "creditor" under the ECOA, we need not decide that issue. Even if Verex was a "creditor," it was not be liable under these circumstances.
The provisions of the statute and corresponding regulations contemplate applications being submitted to a creditor by a third party on behalf of the applicant. 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d) (4); 12 C.F.R. 202.9(a) (1989). Although the third party submission does not eliminate the "creditor's" notification requirements, those obligations may be satisfied indirectly by notification to the third party. 15 U.S.C. § 1691(d) (4). The Krohns argue that the written notice by IMPCO did not satisfy Verex's obligation because Verex was not identified as the insurer.
Whether or not notice was defective, Verex satisfied any obligation it might have had when it gave immediate and full explanation of its rejection to IMPCO. The regulations state:
When a notice is to be provided through a third party, a creditor is not liable for an act or omission of the third party that constitutes a violation of the regulation if the creditor accurately and in a timely manner provided the third party with the information necessary for the notification and maintains reasonable procedures adapted to prevent such violations.
12 C.F.R. Part 202, Supp. I, paragraph 9(c) (3); 12 C.F.R. 202.9(a) (4). Verex gave IMPCO notice and explanation of the reasons for its decision within thirty days of receiving the application. Verex had no prior dealings with the Krohns, and therefore had no reason to send notice directly to the Krohns. However, upon being orally contacted by Mr. Krohn, a Verex employee gave a full explanation of the decision. There is nothing in the record to suggest that Verex failed to maintain reasonable procedures designed to effectuate notice to the Krohns. Under these circumstances, we find that Verex gave all notification that would have been required by the Act. Because Verex satisfied the notification provisions of the statute, we need not decide whether Verex was a "creditor" under the terms of the ECOA. Verex's request for sanctions is denied.