Bilek v. Federal Ins. Co.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiff’s action under Telephone Consumer Protection Act, alleging vicarious liability theory that defendants’ agents generated unauthorized robocalls, under circumstances, where one defendant contracted with second defendant to sell first defendant’s insurance products, and where: (1) second defendant hired lead generators to effectuate telemarketing; and (3) lead generators made instant unauthorized robocalls. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege agency relationship, Ct. of Appeals found that plaintiff adequately pleaded that lead generators acted with first and second defendants’ actual authority, where plaintiff alleged that: (1) first defendant gave second defendant and its lead generators authority to use its trade name, approved scripts and proprietary pricing and product information; (2) second defendant then provided said scripts to lead generators and participated in calls directly by pairing lead generators with customers and emailing insurance quotes to call recipients; and (3) both first and second defendants accepted benefits from lead generators’ calls. Ct. rejected defendants’ contention that plaintiff failed to meet pleading standards, where complaint lacked allegations that defendants controlled timing, quantity and geographic location of lead generators’ robocalls. Ct. also found that actions of agents may be attributable to second defendant for purposes of establishing personal jurisdiction over second defendant.