# Safeco Insurance Co. of America v. Burr

> Supreme Court of the United States · June 4, 2007 · 551 U.S. 47

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435057

## Case

- **Full name:** Safeco Insurance Company of America Et Al. v. Burr Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** June 4, 2007
- **Citations:** 551 U.S. 47; 127 S. Ct. 2201; 167 L. Ed. 2d 1045; 2007 U.S. LEXIS 6963
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Thomas
- **Judges:** Souter, Roberts, Kennedy, Breyer, Scaua, Thomas, Auto, Stevens, Ginsburg
- **Cited by:** 1,247 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435057

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that although a willful FCRA violation can be supported by “recklessness,” after considering the. relevant statutory subsection, appellate case law, and FTC Guidance, “a company subject to FCRA does not act’ in reckless disregard of it unless the action is not only …
- finding that liability under Section 1681n(a) for “willfully failing] to comply” with FCRA covers both knowing and reckless violations of the statute and that “a company subject to the FCRA does not act in reckless disregard of it unless the action is not only a violation unde…
- holding that plaintiff was not entitled to damages under § 1681n(a) for a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act in part because “[g]iven this dearth of guidance and the less-than-pellucid statutory text, Safe-co’s reading was not objectively unreasonable, and so f…
- holding that a defendant "does not act in reckless disregard of [a statute] unless the action is not only a violation under a reasonable reading of the statute's terms, but shows that the [defendant] ran a risk of violating the law substantially greater than the risk associate…
- stating that evidence of subjective bad faith should not be taken into account "in determining whether a company acted knowingly or recklessly for purposes of § 1681n(a)” when the company’s reading of the statute is objectively reasonable

## Opinion text

Justice Thomas,
with whom Justice Alito joins, concurring in part.
I agree with the Court’s disposition and most of its reasoning. Safeco did not send notices to new customers because it took the position that the initial insurance rate it offered a customer could not be an “increase in any charge for . . . insurance” under 15 U. S. C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(i). The Court properly holds that regardless of the merits of this interpretation, it is not an unreasonable one, and Safeco therefore did not act willfully. Ante, at 68-70. I do not join Part III-A of the Court’s opinion, however, because it resolves the merits of Safeco’s interpretation of § 1681a(k)(l)(B)(i)— an issue not necessary to the Court’s conclusion and not briefed or argued by the parties.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9435057. Public record. Not legal advice.