
    Lori SPANO; Alan Opoien; Patricia McGrath; Joan Horton, Plaintiffs, and Charles Burr; Shannon Massey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SAFECO CORPORATION; Safeco Insurance Co. of America; American State Insurance Company; Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois; Safeco Insurance Company of Oregon, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 04-35313.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Jan. 9, 2008.
    Steve D. Larson, Esq., Scott A. Shorr, Esq., Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schla-chter, PC, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    John A. Bennett, Esq., Lisa E. Lear, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey, PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: STEPHEN REINHARDT, MARSHA S. BERZON, and JAY S. BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. See Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 2201, 167 L.Ed.2d 1045 (2007). The Court affirmed our holding in Reynolds v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., 435 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.2006), that liability under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a) for “willfully failing] to comply” with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) includes reckless disregard of statutory duties. Burr, 127 S.Ct. at 2208. The Court also agreed with our holding that quoting or charging a first-time premium can be “an increase in any charge for ... any insurance, existing or applied for.” Id. at 2210 (quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(l)(B)(i)). In addition, the Court held that notice is required only when consideration of a consumer’s credit report is a necessary condition for the increased rate. Id. at 2212 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1681m(a)). Finally, reversing our holding, the Court held that the baseline for determining whether a first-time rate is a disadvantageous increase is the rate the applicant would have received had the company not taken his credit score into account. Id. at 2213.

The Court held that Safeco was not liable because its misreading of the statute was not reckless, and therefore was not “willful.” Id. at 2215-16.

Plaintiffs did not raise on appeal any basis for liability other than the theory rejected by the Court. Therefore we affirm the district court’s summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.  