Quantcast

Florida company's call to solicit dental insurance leads Pittsburgh plaintiff to file case for TCPA violations

PENNSYLVANIA RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Florida company's call to solicit dental insurance leads Pittsburgh plaintiff to file case for TCPA violations

Courtgavelscales062348

PITTSBURGH – A Pittsburgh man believes a Florida-based company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when it solicited his business over the phone to purchase dental insurance.

Mark B. Aronson of Pittsburgh filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 9 versus Photo Snap Butler, LLC and William J. Rivera (doing business as “Photo Snap Butler”), of Holiday, Fla.

Aronson brought the TCPA litigation in response to an incoming, pre-recorded, commercial, unsolicited telemarketer phone call soliciting business to purchase dental insurance, placed to his residence and personal telephone number on Nov. 14, 2016 – allegedly from the defendants, whose corporation appeared to be previously dissolved.

“Plaintiff found himself chatting with an employee of defendants’ principal who identified herself as Tiffany and plaintiff applied for dental insurance coverage, and authorized defendants’ principal to charge his VISA card,” the suit says. Tiffany then instructed Aronson that the call was being recorded.

According to the plaintiff, the call violated four tenets of the TCPA: 1) The call delivered a pre-recorded message to plaintiff’s residential telephone line using a pre-recorded voice without plaintiff’s consent; 2) The call delivered a pre-recorded message without providing a telephone number for the caller; 3) The call delivered a pre-recorded message without providing a telephone number for the caller and 4) The call failed to provide caller identification information that could be used to place a do-not-call request.

“Under the TCPA, plaintiff is entitled to be awarded the sum of five hundred dollars for each violation contained the incoming call, and the TCPA authorizes the Court to treble the sum of $500 to $1,500 per violation when the call has been willfully placed. Plaintiff has standing to seek statutory damages of $6,000 (computed as four $1,500 violations for the call),” the suit states.

The plaintiff is seeking damages of $6,000 plus costs, and is representing himself in this matter.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-17-013823

From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nickpennrecord@gmail.com

More News