قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / Insurance / Liberty Mutual is not obligated to replace the TCPA case

Liberty Mutual is not obligated to replace the TCPA case



A unit of the Liberty Mutual Group is not liable to pay for a decision on a case under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act due to a privacy exception in its coverage, a separate federal appeals court, which upholds a lower court decision.

Consumers filed a class action lawsuit against health insurance broker Boca Raton, Florida-based iCan Benefit Group LLC, alleging violations of TCPA due to unsolicited text messages they had sent to their cell phones without their consent, according to Tuesday's 11th U.S. decision. District Court of Appeals in Atlanta Jacob Horn et al. v. Liberty Insurance Underwriters Inc.

ICan sought coverage for the claims during its coverage with Liberty Mutual Unit Liberty Insurance Underwriters, but Liberty denied the request. ICan then settled the dispute and pleaded guilty to $ 60,41

3,112 in damages and assigned all of its rights against the insurer to the plaintiffs.

When the plaintiffs tried to enforce the judgment against Liberty, the U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach ruled in favor of the insurer, as the insurance policy did not cover the settled class claims because the TCPA claims arose due to an invasion of privacy. and was therefore not covered by an exemption from the privacy policy.

The majority of a panel of three judges agreed. The insurance policy generally excludes civil proceedings as a result of invasion of privacy, it said.

When "we constitute the policy" in its entirety "and" gives meaning to each of its provisions ", as we must, the invasion of the exclusion of secrecy unequivocally precludes class action – which is a civil proceeding arising from an infringement of privacy from coverage ", was mentioned in an earlier case and upheld the lower court's judgment.

The dissenting opinion states," Although class plaintiffs' complaints in this case sometimes generally characterized iCans robotexts as involving & # 39; & # 39; invasion of privacy & # 39; & # 39 ;, it did not contain any bills claiming the legal liability for invasion of privacy.

Plaintiff's Attorney Yelene Shneyderman of Yelena Schneyderman, PA in Hollywood, Florida, said in a statement, "My clients are obviously disappointed with the decision. This was a very complicated case. The carrier's lawyer has done an outstanding job of convincing the court to accept the carrier's view on this case. However, we believe that Judge (Kevin) Newsom's deviation is more in line with established legal principles concerning the interpretation of politics. Of course, we respect the court's decision and we appreciate the efforts of both the majority and the dissent to address the issues in the case and to provide a thorough analysis of their respective positions.

The insurer's lawyers did not respond. to a request for comment.

A federal appeals board agreed with a lower court in April that a Chubb Ltd. entity was not required to defend a dental laboratory in a TCPA fax case.

Catalog


Source link