The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) restricts telephone solicitations and limits the use of automatic dialing systems, prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages, and faxes. TCPA plaintiffs typically claim that they received unwanted calls, texts or faxes in furtherance of telemarketing campaigns, and that their damages include the loss of ink toner, paper, and occupation of their fax machines and/or phone lines.
The TCPA is a favorite of class action lawyers because it provides a private right of action and statutory damages of $500 for each violation and up to $1,500 for each willful violation. Because most cases involve a large number of calls, texts or faxes, the potential damages in TCPA cases can be significant.
New TCPA regulations, implemented on October 16, 2013, require telemarketers to obtain express written consent before making calls or sending texts to consumers’ mobile phones using an autodialer, a pre-recorded or artificial voice or making calls to any consumer’s phone using a pre-recorded or artificial voice. These regulations also eliminated the “established business relationship” exemption to the TCPA for telemarketing calls to residential lines made with pre-a recorded or artificial voice. Even before this stricter new rule became law, approximately 40 TCPA class actions were filed in the first half of 2013. That number is predicted to increase in light of the new rule.
This raises the question of whether or not TCPA defendants can turn to their liability insurers to defend and indemnify them for TCPA-related damages. The answer to that question is, maybe.
Liability for Property Damage
Despite allegations by TCPA plaintiffs that they have suffered property damage as a result of receiving the defendant’s unwanted solicitations, court almost universally have held that coverage is precluded since the insured expected or intended to send the unwanted solicitation. Resource Bankshares Corp. v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 407 F.3d 631, 637-39 (4th Cir. 2005) (sending faxes was not an “accident” under Virginia law); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543, 551 (7th Cir. 2009) (applying Iowa law; expected or intended exclusion applies); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Bro. Int’l Corp., 319 F. App’x 121, 126-27 (3d Cir. 2009) (same, under New Jersey law); Melrose Hotel Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 432 F. Supp. 2d 488, 509-12 (E.D. Pa. 2006), aff’d by 503 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 2007) (under Pennsylvania law, property damage was not the result of an “event”); MDC Acquisition Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144876 (N.D. Ohio, May 15, 2012) (no occurrence under Ohio law). One exception was a Tenth Circuit case, decided under Kansas law, which required the court to examine, from the standpoint of the insured, whether the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the insured’s act. The court noted that under Kansas law, even if an act is intentional, it may result in an unintended injury. Because the insured alleged that it had no intent to injure since it thought it had permission to send the fax, the court ruled that the insurer was required to provide a defense. Park University Enterprises, Inc. v. American Casualty Co. of Reading, PA, 442 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2006).
Liability for Advertising Injury
Coverage for TCPA claims may fall within the terms of a policy’s advertising injury coverage. A key issue is whether the advertising injury language is interpreted to cover only disclosure of private content to a third party, or if it is interpreted more broadly, to include violation of the recipient’s right to seclusion. Advertising injury coverage for TCPA violations has been found to implicate the latter.
A common definition of advertising injury includes “oral or written publication that violates a person’s right to privacy.” In interpreting this language, courts have come to different conclusions. In one line of cases, largely out of the Seventh Circuit, courts preclude coverage for TCPA claims, holding that the right to privacy in this context only extends to the disclosure of private facts. Am. States Ins. Co. v. Capital Assocs. of Jackson County, Inc., 392 F.3d 939 (7th Cir. 2004) (applying Illinois law; but see Valley Forge Ins. Co., infra); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2009) (applying Iowa law but following Am. States, supra); Ace Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 580 F. Supp. 2d 678, 688 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (applying Indiana law but following Am. States); Erie Ins. Exch. v. Kevin T. Watts, Inc., 1:05-cv-867-JDT-TAB, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35828 (S.D. Ind. 2006) (applying Indiana law but following Am. States, supra). Since disclosure of private facts is not an issue in typical blast fax TCPA cases, this interpretation would preclude coverage under similarly worded policies in most cases.
Meanwhile, other courts, including the Illinois and Florida Supreme Courts, the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, and the Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts disagreed and have held that advertising injury coverage under the same policy language does apply to TCPA violations, interpreting the right to privacy to include the recipient’s right to seclusion. See Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Elecs., Inc., 223 Ill. 2d 352 (Ill. 2006); Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2010); Sawyer v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 343 Wis....
