Factual Disputes ‘Preclude’ Summary Judgment for Geico, Says TCPA Plaintiff
Geico wrongly moves for summary judgment on plaintiff Michael Smith’s Telephone Consumer Protection Act claims the insurer inundated his cellphone with prerecorded robocalls “on the sole basis” that Smith consented to the calls, said his memorandum of law Wednesday (docket…
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.
8:21-cv-02746) in U.S. District Court for Maryland in Greenbelt in opposition to Geico’s motion. Smith never gave his phone number to Geico or co-defendant ExamWorks, which made the calls on Geico’s behalf, said the memorandum. Geico’s assertion that Smith nevertheless consented through an “intermediary” fails because he didn’t consent “in the first instance," it said. No intermediary “conveyed his consent” to Geico or its vendor, as is required “to satisfy consent via an intermediary,” it said. Smith regardless instructed Geico “not to call him prior to any calls to him, which revoked any consent in any case,” it said: “Summary judgment should be denied.” In Smith’s case against Geico, “genuine disputes of material fact preclude the entry of summary judgment” in Geico’s favor, said the memorandum. Geico fails to show it’s entitled to judgment “as a matter of law,” it said. It also fails to establish that Smith “consented to the calls at issue and it fails to rebut his showing of revocation” of consent, it said.