Pretty quick decision for you.
The plaintiff had an insurance contract with the defendant. The plaintiff canceled the policy. The defendant added the plaintiff’s number to a winback campaign and attempted to bring him back into the fold.
The plaintiff sued arguing that the termination of the policy was also a termination of the EBR. That is, the plaintiff argued that the formal termination of the policy necessarily cut the EBR and neutralized the presumed 18-month liquidation period granted by the CFR.
The Court disagreed. Concluding that the DNC’s EBR rules are clear, the Court found that the termination of the policy did not destroy the EBR defense. Instead, the plaintiff should have clearly asked for the appeals to be stopped for the EBR to evaporate.
The case is Rowan c. US Dealer Services, 2022 WL 2803103, civil. No. 21-09945 (KM)(LDW)(DNJ 07/18/2022).
mountain ash is a great little case that continues the trend of cases arguing that “implicit” revocation is not effective in the TCPAWorld. However, most of the time, the “implied” revocation relates to the consent. mountain ash applies the same doctrine to the DNC’s EBR defense, which is pretty cool to see.
Ultimately, the end of a business relationship is not the end of the EBR defense. You have 18 months from the date of the last transaction to try and win back your customers under federal DNC rules – just remember to do this manually (and watch out for states like Florida that don’t have defense EBR)!
© 2022 Troutman CompanyNational Law Review, Volume XII, Number 201