N.J. Insurer Countersues TCPA Plaintiff for Fraud, Seeks Vendor Indemnification
Seven weeks to the day after U.S. District Judge Julien Neals for New Jersey in Newark denied Plymouth Rock’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Robert Clough’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action (see 2401030051), the New Jersey insurance company reacted aggressively…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
on two fronts in its answer Friday (docket 2:21-cv-19343). Plymouth Rock first countersued Clough for violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, alleging that he runs a “cottage industry” of filing “sham” TCPA lawsuits with the class action against Plymouth Rock just the latest. It then filed a third-party complaint alleging that its call vendor, ConnectThe Calls.com, and its owner, Marlen Rapoport, violated the terms of an October 2019 contract that bars the vendor from violating the TCPA and in which the vendor agreed to indemnify Plymouth Rock against legal peril. The counterclaim alleges that Clough falsely misrepresented his interest seeking automobile insurance policies and quotes, while fraudulently using a third person’s identity without permission. Clough did so “solely and expressly for the purpose of concocting an otherwise meritless claim” under the TCPA. Clough’s fraudulent actions “are prohibited under New Jersey common law and statutes,” it said. Clough’s fraud has caused actual harm to Plymouth Rock, said the counterclaim. The insurer “has been compelled to expend time and resources in connection with the handling of Clough’s fraudulent telephonic solicitations for an automobile insurance quote proposal in which he had no genuine interest,” it said. Clough’s fraud has caused further actual harm to Plymouth Rock in responding to such false claims “and defending against the concocted lawsuits,” including the litigation costs and fees it has been forced to pay, it said. In the third-party complaint, Plymouth Rock alleges that Rapoport and the vendor are liable for all debts and obligations “under the doctrines of veil piercing, alter ego, and successor liability.” Neither Rapoport nor the vendor “has taken any measures to defend or indemnify Plymouth Rock” against Clough’s claims in the TCPA complaint, it said. While denying all liability as to any and all claims in Clough’s complaint, Plymouth Rock “is entitled to a defense, indemnification, contribution, and breach of contract damages” from Rapoport and the vendor, it said.