AIG Direct Class Action Lawsuit Says Repeated Robocalls Violate TCPA

A Florida woman has filed a class action lawsuit against AIG Direct Insurance Services Inc. for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Judy Seavey says that she had been harassed with unsolicited phone calls by AIG Direct after never authorizing the telephone calls and repeatedly asking the life insurance company to stop.

Initally, Seavey says she told the AIG representative that they were contacting the wrong person and that no one with the name of “Tim” or “Tom” had been living at her address.

The AIG class action claims Seavey registered her cellular telephone number with the National Do Not Call Registry on Jan. 27, 2006. Despite being listed on the Do Not Call Registry, Seavey says she began receiving a series of telephone calls from AIG Direct starting in October 2016.

Upon answering these unwanted telephone calls, Seavey demanded that AIG Direct cease all contact and stop making these telephone calls as the person with the aforementioned name was not there.

However, on Nov. 2, 2016, Seavey continued to receive telephone calls and specifically four telephone calls in the span of 34 minutes (two telephone calls made within a six minute time frame).

This TCPA class action lawsuit brought by Seavey, suggests that despite never having a relationship with AIG Direct, repeatedly requesting to have AIG Direct cease all contact, and never having signed a written agreement to the retrieval of any telemarketing calls, that AIG Direct has indeed violated the TCPA.

Under the TCPA, enacted in 1991, consumers are protected from solicitors and telemarketers who do not have permission to contact them. Moreover, this enactment also includes the FCC’s new interpretation requiring a written and signed agreement to any and all retrieval of telemarketing calls not limited to text messages, calls being made using an autodialing machine, and/or prerecorded messages.

By making these telephone calls, AIG Direct caused harm, nuisance, aggravation, and the blatant interference of the plaintiff’s enjoyment of her cell phone.

Seavey is filing this TCPA class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and three Classes. Moreover, this class action does not discount the monetary loss suffered for having paid the wireless carriers for these telephone calls.

The first Class includes the Autodialed No Consent Class, comprising of all persons for whom AIG claims it received prior expressed consent. The second Class includes the Do Not Call Registry, comprising of persons for whom their telephone numbers are listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. The third, includes the Autodialed Stop Call Class, for all persons who had informed and directly expressed a stop call to all contact.

By filing a TCPA lawsuit consumers are able to collect between $500 and $1500 per violation. Should the court determine that AIG Direct’s action was knowing and willful, Seavey, and members of the Classes, may be entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages for each violation of the TCPA.

Seavey is represented by Stefan Coleman of the Law Offices of Stefan Coleman PA, and Steven L. Woodrow and Patrick H. Peluso of Woodrow & Peluso LLC.

The AIG TCPA Class Action Lawsuit is Judy Seavey v. AIG Direct Insurance Services Inc., Case Number: 8:17-cv-00387, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION NOW