NHCaseLaw.com

The present matter before the Court is in the opening stages of a potential class action law suit. Amanda Carlisle, the plaintiff, has brought this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated against St. Mary's Credit Union ("the defendant" or "St. Mary's''). The plaintiff and other members of the putative class are purchasers of credit life and/or accident and disability insurance issued by Universal Underwriters Life Insurance Company ("UULIC") who financed their purchases through retail installment sales contracts. The defendant is the assignee/holder of the contracts. This case arises out of the defendant's failure to provide notice to UULIC regarding the plaintiffs prepayment of her loan prior to the expiration of the credit insurance coverage and loan terms. The defendant now moves to dismiss the plaintiffs Writ, arguing that the relevant statute, RSA 361-A, fails to provide a private right of action for the plaintiffs claims. The plaintiff objects. On September 8, 2005, the Court held a hearing on this motion. For the reasons stated in this order, the defendant's motion to dismiss is DENIED.

The plaintiffs, Frederick Amoche ("Amoche"), Diane Dauphinais ("Dauphinais"), and Jon Valliere ("Valliere") initiated this cause of action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against the defendant, Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Company ("GTL"). The plaintiffs each allegedly purchased credit life and/or credit disability insurance issued by the defendant, a credit insurer, as part of a retail installment sales contract for the purchase of an automobile. The plaintiffs have asserted five claims arising from the defendant's alleged breach of its contractual, statutory, and fiduciary obligations to refund unearned premiums to the plaintiffs upon early loan repayment.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Lynn Couture, instituted this proposed class action to obtain redress for alleged deceptive practices engaged in by the defendants in connection with the financing of used cars purchased by the plaintiffs and members of the class. The defendants are G.W.M., Inc. doing business as the Auto-Torium, a New Hampshire automobile dealer licensed under the provisions of RSA chapter 361-A (1995 and Supp. 2002); WFS Financial, Inc., a California corporation engaged in the business of providing subprime car loans to individuals with poor credit histories and which purchased the Coutures' retail installment sales contract from Auto-Torium.; and ten additional, as-yet-unidentified, auto finance companies (referred to in the complaint as "John Does 1-10") which also purchased installment sales contracts from Auto-Torium. The amended complaint asserts claims against Auto-Torium for violation of RSA 361-A, the Retail Installment Sales of Motor Vehicles Act, and RSA 358-A (1995 and Supp. 2002), the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and for breach of contract; and also seeks to hold WFS liable as an assignee pursuant to the terms of the contract and under the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) "Holder Rule," 16 C.F.R. § 433, (count V). The matter comes before the court at this time on motions to dismiss filed by Auto-Torium and WFS. I conclude that the CPA claim must be dismissed, but that in all other respects the motions must be denied.

The nine named plaintiffs bring this proposed class action to obtain redress for alleged deceptive practices engaged in by the defendants in connection with the financing of used cars purchased by them from defendant G.W.M., Inc., doing business as the Auto-torium (hereinafter “Auto-torium”). The other named defendants are six finance companies which took assignments from Auto-torium of automobile retail installment sales contracts executed by plaintiffs and putative members of the class. Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. After carefully considering the voluminous filings submitted by the parties, I conclude that the motion must be denied.