Just because a case is a few years old does not mean its not a gem. In Colorado Capital v Owens, 227 FRD 181, 188 [EDNY 2005], at issue is whether a bank owes a duty of care to its debtor customers.
After applying a "policy-laden test," the court holds yes, such a duty of reasonable care should be recognized.
It is entirely reasonable to expect credit card issuers to exercise care in the selection of the debt collection firms they hire to collect their debts. For example, surely credit card issuers should not be able to escape liability if they hired a debt collection firm that used hit-men or torturous means to collect debt from their customers. Creditors should reasonably foresee that a debt collection firm they hire could possibly resort to impermissible or illegal conduct to collect debt. Thus, the imposition of a duty of care in this context furthers the legislative and societal judgment that unfair and harmful debt collection practices in this country are unacceptable.
If your bank claims that the collector it hired to pursue you was an independent contractor, the bank may be found liable anyway if it was negligent in selecting, instructing, or supervising the contractor.
Call me if any creditor carelessly or unfairly caused you harm through aggressive collection activity.
If you've received contact, in any form, from any of the below collection law firms, contact me right away. You need to raise important city, state, and federal defenses:
Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, Mel S. Harris Associates, LLC, Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, Rubin & Rothman, LLC, Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP, Forster & Garbus, LLP, Malen & Associates, P.C., Pressler and Pressler, LLP [I make no particular representations about these law firms other than their status as consumer debt collectors].