Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

New Amendments to the WVCCPA to Provide Additional Certainty for Businesses

By Jared C. Searls & Andrew J. Narod on April 8, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In a development that provides some measure of relief to businesses operating in West Virginia, particularly within the financial services industry, Gov. Jim Justice signed into law on March 29, 2021, amendments to the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). These amendments appear to provide clarity on certain attorneys’ fees provisions in the WVCCPA, to define the process for a pre-suit notice to cure and offer in response, and to provide new limitations on recovery of attorneys’ fees in the instance of an offer of judgment or a written offer to settle. And most notably, this legislation provides an avenue for defendants to recover attorneys’ fees from plaintiffs in the event a finding is made that a claim was frivolous or made in bad faith, or in the event that a settlement was rejected without justification. All told, these amendments should work to help provide additional certainty to businesses operating in West Virginia and additional tools for combatting litigation under this statute.

It is hardly insignificant that West Virginia is now enacting more business-friendly provisions into the WVCCPA. The WVCCPA was initially enacted in 1974 and is notoriously consumer-friendly in practice. Its scope includes consumer loans, credit sales, and leases, as well as general consumer protection against “unfair, deceptive and fraudulent acts or practices.” Claims under the WVCCPA are routinely significant because some of its civil liability provisions provide for an award of actual damages and attorneys’ fees, as in many other states, and statutory penalties of $1,000 per violation as increased for inflation. These amounts — particularly the statutory penalties — add up very quickly for business defendants. In many ways, this statute is unique amongst peer states in its potential severity due to the penalty provisions.

As a result, the prospect of a more business-friendly shift in certain components of the WVCCPA when these amendments become effective in June 2021 might provide more certainty to businesses operating in the state. Key changes to the WVCCPA include:

  • Recovery for frivolous claims and defenses: Under newly enacted provisions of this law, a party prevailing after a verdict or judgment is entered may move the court to determine whether the opposing party presented a frivolous claim and may seek reasonable attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses. This change is potentially critical, as a “frivolous” claim is defined as one that lacks substantial justification, is not made in good faith, or is made in the absence of any reasonable belief that a court would accept the claim. Plaintiffs (and defendants) will now need to think twice before asserting claims or defenses in cases — but the expectation is that WVCCPA claims will now need to be subject to more thorough scrutiny by plaintiffs in advance of their filing.
  • Pre-suit notices: The new amendment provides a uniform manner for consumer plaintiffs to transmit their required notices to cure in advance of bringing an action under the WVCCPA. It also provides a framework for businesses to respond by making a cure offer, as well as guidance as to the legal effect of making a cure offer.
  • Offers of settlement or of judgment: Newly enacted provisions outline a process for transmitting an offer to settle or an offer of judgment more than 30 days before trial. If this process is followed and an offer is made in writing, this mechanism may provide attorneys’ fee relief for defendants. A plaintiff that rejects a written offer of this nature may not recover attorneys’ fees or expenses from the date of the offer through the entry of judgment if the final judgment is less than 75% of the offer, subject to certain restrictions.

Critically, if the judgment entered does not exceed 75% of the offer, a defendant may petition the court for recovery of its reasonable fees and expenses incurred after the offer was made if the court finds that the plaintiff acted without substantial justification or without good faith in rejecting the offer. This is a significant departure from the offer of judgment rules set forth in W. Va. R. Civ. P. 68 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 because the potential now exists for recovery of attorneys’ fees in addition to costs.

These changes are significant, and defendants facing a WVCCPA claim — in a West Virginia state court or federal court — will now have additional tools at their disposal to combat such claims and to control the risk of escalating attorneys’ fees. While these changes are only prospective in nature, and while they apply only to cases filed after the effective date, it now appears that the WVCCPA will be slightly more business-friendly going forward. It will be intriguing to see how these new amendments are interpreted, and how aggressively defendants will use these new tools to combat WVCCPA claims in the future.

Photo of Jared C. Searls Jared C. Searls

Jared Searls focuses his practice on assisting financial institution clients on a wide variety of litigation and regulatory compliance matters. Jared is a member of Bradley’s Financial Services Litigation team and is also a member of the Auto Finance and Payment Systems teams…

Jared Searls focuses his practice on assisting financial institution clients on a wide variety of litigation and regulatory compliance matters. Jared is a member of Bradley’s Financial Services Litigation team and is also a member of the Auto Finance and Payment Systems teams, with a particular emphasis on new-age technology and evolving forms of payments and client-consumer interaction. He advises financial clients on ever-changing financial regulations on both the state and federal level and provides defense when disputes or litigation actions are brought against lenders and other financial institutions.

Read more about Jared C. SearlsEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Andrew J. Narod Andrew J. Narod

Andrew Narod is an experienced litigator who represents bank and non-bank financial services institutions and other types of businesses in class-action litigation, complex commercial litigation, and other high-profile litigation disputes nationwide. His clients entrust him to navigate some of their most sensitive litigation…

Andrew Narod is an experienced litigator who represents bank and non-bank financial services institutions and other types of businesses in class-action litigation, complex commercial litigation, and other high-profile litigation disputes nationwide. His clients entrust him to navigate some of their most sensitive litigation matters in some of the most difficult venues in the country.

Read more about Andrew J. NarodEmail Andrew's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Financial
  • Blog:
    Financial Services Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog
  • Stridon News and Insights
  • Taft Class Action & Consumer Insights
  • Labor and Employment Law Insights
  • Age of Disruption
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo