Skip to Navigation
The Collaborative Clearinghouse for Lawsuits and Other Claims Against ACE Group Insurance Companies


ATTENTION: It is possible that this information may no longer be current and therefore may be inaccurate. The index contains both open and closed cases and is not a complete list of cases in which an ACE Insurance Group company is involved. This information is provided to give interested persons an idea of the issues disputed in the indexed cases. For a full understanding of a case, one should read the rest of the court file, including the response. For the most up-to-date and complete information on a case, visit or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
1:15-cv-21264 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Justin Mark Boise
Court Type: 
US District Court: 
Southern District of Florida
Date Filed: 
Apr 1 2015


COMES NOW, JUSTIN MARK BOISE (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, brings this Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
(“Complaint”) against Defendant ACE USA, INC. (“Defendant”), to stop Defendant’s practice
of making illegal telemarketing calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by their conduct.  Plaintiff, for his Complaint, alleges as follows
upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts and experiences, and, as to all other
matters, upon information and belief, including investigation conducted by his attorney.

1. Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant to secure redress because
Defendant willfully violated the TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (“TCPA”), 47 U.S.C §
227, et seq. by causing unsolicited calls to be made to Plaintiff’s and other class members’
cellular and residential telephones that are registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry.
2. Defendant made more than one unauthorized call to Plaintiff’s residential line for
the purpose of marketing insurance products to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff did not have an existing
business relationship with Plaintiff, Plaintiff did not seek information about Defendant’s
products, Plaintiff never provided express written consent to be called by Defendant, and the
calls were an invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy.  Indeed, Plaintiff has been a member of the National
Do-Not-Call Registry, authorized by the TCPA, since October 10, 2006, in order to prevent
persistent and harassing marketing calls to his telephone.     
3. The TCPA was enacted to protect consumers from unsolicited telephone calls
exactly like those alleged in this case. In response to Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to cease all unsolicited telephone calling activities to
consumers, and an award of statutory damages to the members of the Class under the TCPA
equal to $500.00 per violation, together with court costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and treble
damages (for knowing and/or willful violations).
4. Plaintiff JUSTIN MARK BOISE is a natural person and citizen of Hialeah, Florida.
5. Defendant ACE USA, INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
of Delaware. Defendant maintains its principle place of business in Pennsylvania at 436 Walnut
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106.  Defendant may be served with process by serving its
registered agent, The Corporation Trust Center, 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, Delaware
6. Whenever in this complaint it is alleged that Defendant committed any act or
omission, it is meant that the Defendant’s officers, directors, vice-principals, agents, servants, or
employees committed such act or omission and that at the time such act or omission was
committed, it was done with the full authorization, ratification or approval of Defendant or was
done in the routine normal course and scope of employment of the Defendant’s officers,
directors, vice-principals, agents, servants, or employees.


7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this action
arises under the TCPA, which is a federal statute.
8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
formulated, directed, implemented, and ratified a nation-wide telemarketing scheme designed to
target and contact persons in this jurisdiction.  Plaintiff and members of the proposed class would
not have suffered an injury but for Defendant’s forum-related conduct.  Furthermore, exercise of
personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this District does not offend traditional notions of fair
play or substantial justice..
9. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332(d)(2) because the matter in controversy in this civil action exceeds the sum or value of
$5,000,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs, and at least one member of the putative class is a
citizen of a state different from Defendants.  Furthermore, the Plaintiff Class consists of at least
one hundred members.
10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because the
wrongful conduct giving rise to this case occurred in, was directed to, and/or emanated from this


11. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA to regulate the explosive growth of the
telemarketing industry.  In doing so, Congress recognized that “[u]nrestricted
telemarketing…can be an intrusive invasion of privacy…”  Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-243 § 2(5) (1991) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 227).   
12. Specifically, the TCPA restricts telephone solicitations (i.e., telemarketing) and
the use of automated telephone equipment. The TCPA limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text messages, and fax machines. It also
specifies several technical requirements for fax machines, autodialers, and voice messaging
systems—principally with provisions requiring identification and contact information of the
entity using the device to be contained in the message.
13. The TCPA also authorizes regulations that led to the implementation of what is
widely known as the National Do-Not-Call Registry (“DNC”).  The Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) amended the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) to give consumers a choice about whether
they want to receive most telemarketing calls. As of October 1, 2003, it became illegal for most
telemarketers or sellers to call a number listed on the DNC.  The DNC applies to any plan,
program, or campaign to sell goods or services through interstate phone calls. This includes
telemarketers who solicit consumers, often on behalf of third party sellers. It also includes sellers
who provide, offer to provide, or arrange to provide goods or services to consumers in exchange
for payment.  
14. The DNC does not limit calls by political organizations, charities, or telephone
surveyors.  A telemarketer or seller may call a consumer with whom it has an established
business relationship for up to 18 months after the consumer's last purchase, delivery, or
payment—even if the consumer's number is on the DNC. In addition, a company may call a
consumer for up to three months after the consumer makes an inquiry or submits an application
to the company. And if a consumer has given a company express written permission, the
company may call even if the consumer's number is on the DNC.  However, if a consumer asks a
company not to call, the company may not call, even if there is an established business
relationship. Indeed, a company may not call a consumer—regardless of whether the consumer's
number is on the registry—if the consumer has asked to be put on the company's own do not call


15. Defendant provides commercial and personal property and casualty insurance,
personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance to a diverse
  Unfortunately for consumers, Defendant utilized (and continues to utilize) a
group of clients.
sophisticated telephone dialing system to call individuals en masse promoting their services.  
Defendant obtained these telephone numbers (i.e., leads) by purchasing marketing lists
containing consumers’ telephone numbers.
16. In Defendant’s overzealous attempt to market their services, it placed (and
continues to place) phone calls to consumers who never provided consent to call and to
consumers having no relationship with Defendant. Worse yet, Defendant placed (and continues
to place) repeated and unwanted calls to consumers whose phone numbers are listed on the DNC.  
Consumers place their phone numbers on the DNC for the express purpose of avoiding unwanted
telemarketing calls like those alleged here.
17. Defendant knowingly made (and continues to make) these telemarketing calls
without the prior express written consent of the call recipients. As such, Defendant not only
invaded the personal privacy of Plaintiff and members of the putative Class, but also
intentionally and repeatedly violated the TCPA.


18. Over eight years ago, on or about October 10, 2006, Plaintiff registered his
residential phone number ending in 3488 with the National Do Not Call Registry.
19. On or around March 6, 2015 at 5:28 p.m., Plaintiff received a call on his
residential telephone from the phone number (855) 287-9329.
20. On or around March 11, 2015 at 5:11 p.m., Plaintiff received a second call on his
residential telephone from the phone number (855) 287-9329.
21. Plaintiff received both calls described above on his residential telephone assigned
a number ending in 3488.
22. Although his number is registered on the DNC, Plaintiff receives a large volume
on telemarketing calls to his residential line.  Because the calls are intrusive and unwanted,
Plaintiff typically allows his answering system to pick up calls from numbers Plaintiff does not
23. Plaintiff did not recognize the telephone number above as each call was incoming.  
Suspecting the caller was a telemarketer, Plaintiff allowed his answering system to pick up the
24. After the system prompted the caller to leave a message, the caller was silent
before Plaintiff heard clicks.  The caller ultimately disconnected the call without leaving a
25. Because of his past experience, and given the circumstances of the call, it was
obvious to Plaintiff that the caller used an automatic dialing system to call his phone.  Plaintiff
was annoyed by the calls, so he entered the caller’s number into an internet search engine in
order to identify the caller.   
26. Plaintiff’s internet search confirmed the number that called him belonged to
Defendant.  Plaintiff also noticed several complaints on internet websites about Defendant’s
incessant telemarketing practices.   
27. Plaintiff learned that the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to sell property
insurance to homeowners.   
28. Because Plaintiff did not want to receive any more calls from Defendant, Plaintiff
called Defendant using the number from which he had received the incoming calls.   
29. Plaintiff was instantly greeted by a pre-recorded voice, which stated, “[t]hank you
for calling ACE USA, the leading provider of specialty insurance products…”  The automated
system then provided a menu from which Plaintiff could make a selections related to claims.
30. Plaintiff simply wanted the calls to stop and did not believe the automated system
would be helpful to achieve that end.  Therefore, Plaintiff disconnected the call while the pre-
recorded voice was reciting menu options.   
31. At the time of the calls, Plaintiff did not have a business relationship with
32. Plaintiff was annoyed by the calls and wanted Defendant to stop calling.
33. It was obvious to Plaintiff that Defendant wass engaged in a marketing campaign
wherein Defendant contacted a large number of consumers using an autodialer.
34. On information and belief, Defendant’s ATDS called Plaintiff on both occasions.
35. Plaintiff understood the purpose of Defendant’s calls was to solicit business from
36. Plaintiff is the exclusive user of the telephone assigned the number ending in
37. Plaintiff did not provide Defendant with prior express written consent to call his
38. Plaintiff has reason to believe Defendant has called, and continues to call,
thousands of residential and wireless telephone customers to market its products and services.   
39. Plaintiff’s overriding interest is ensuring Defendant ceases all illegal
telemarketing practices and compensates all members of the Plaintiff Class for invading their
privacy in the manner the TCPA was contemplated to prevent.
40. In order to redress injuries caused by Defendant’s violations of the TCPA,
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals, brings suit under the
TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227, et seq., which prohibits certain unsolicited voice and text calls to
wireless and residential phones.   
41. On behalf of the Plaintiff Class, Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring Defendant
to cease all wireless telemarketing and spam activities and an award of statutory damages to the
class members, together with costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.


42. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) on behalf of himself and the following classes defined as follows (the “Class”):
 Class”: All individuals in the United States who within the
applicable statute of limitations: (1) received more than one telephone call
made by or on behalf of Defendant within a 12-month period; (2) to a
telephone number that had been registered with the National Do Not Call
Registry for at least 30 days; and (3) for whom Defendant has no record of
consent to place such calls.  
 “DNC” referenced herein refers to the National Do Not Call Registry, established pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 227(c) and the regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).
43. The following individuals are excluded from the Class: (1) any Judge or
Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) Defendant, Defendant’s
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents
have a controlling interest, and its current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3)
Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel; (4) persons who properly execute and file a timely
request for exclusion from the Class; (5) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any
such excluded persons; and (6) persons whose claims against Defendant have been fully and
finally adjudicated and/or released.
44. This suit seeks only damages, statutory penalties, and injunctive relief for
recovery of economic injury on behalf of the Class, and it expressly is not intended to request
any recovery for personal injury and claims related thereto.   
45. Plaintiff reserves the right to expand the Class definition to seek recovery on
behalf of additional persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation and
46. Plaintiff and members of the Class were harmed by Defendant’s acts in at least
the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through agents, illegally contacted Plaintiff and
the Class members via their residential and cellular telephones which were previously registered
on the DNC for the purpose of preventing such calls, thereby invading the privacy of Plaintiff
and the Class members.


47. The exact size of the Class is unknown and not available to Plaintiff at this time,
but it is clear individual joinder is impracticable.  
48. On information and belief, Defendant made telephone calls to thousands of
consumers who fall into the definition of the Class.  Members of the Class can be easily
identified through Defendant’s records.


49. There are many questions of law and fact common to the claims of Plaintiff and
the Class, and those questions predominate over any questions that may affect individual
members of the Class.  
50. Common questions for the Class include, but are not necessarily limited to the
(a) Whether Defendant’s conduct violated the TCPA and 47 C.F.R. §
(b) Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers who
did not previously provide Defendants and/or their agents with prior
express written consent to receive such phone calls after October 16, 2013;
(c) Whether Defendant systematically made telephone calls to consumers
whose telephone numbers were registered with the National Do Not Call
(d) Whether members of the Class are entitled to treble damages based on the
willfulness of Defendant’s conduct; and
(e) Whether Defendant and its agents should be enjoined from engaging in
such conduct in the future.


51. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class.  
52. Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s uniform
wrongful conduct during transactions with Plaintiff and the Class.


53. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class,
and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class actions.  
54. Plaintiff has no interest antagonistic to those of the Class, and Defendant has no
defenses unique to Plaintiff.


55. This class action is appropriate for certification because Defendant has acted or
refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class as a whole, thereby requiring the
Court’s imposition of uniform relief to ensure compatible standards of conduct toward the Class
members, and making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the Class as a whole.  
56. Defendant’s practices challenged herein apply to and affect the Class members
uniformly, and Plaintiff’s challenge of those practices hinges on Defendant’s conduct with
respect to the Class as a whole, not on facts or law applicable only to Plaintiff.
57. This case is also appropriate for class certification because class proceedings are
superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy
given that joinder of all parties is impracticable.  
58. The damages suffered by the individual members of the Class will likely be
relatively small, especially given the burden and expense of individual prosecution of the
complex litigation necessitated by Defendant’s actions.  
59. Thus, it would be virtually impossible for the individual members of the Class to
obtain effective relief from Defendant’s misconduct.  
60. Even if members of the Class could sustain such individual litigation, it would
still not be preferable to a class action, because individual litigation would increase the delay and
expense to all parties due to the complex legal and factual controversies presented in this
61. By contrast, a class action presents far fewer management difficulties and
provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision
by a single court. Economies of time, effort and expense will be fostered and uniformity of
decisions ensured.

(“DNC Claim” On behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as
though set forth at length herein.
63. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c) provides that any “person who has received more than one
telephone call within any 12-month period by or on behalf of the same entity in violation of the
regulations prescribed under this subsection may” bring a private action based on a violation of
said regulations, which were promulgated to protect telephone subscribers’ privacy rights to
avoid receiving telephone solicitations to which they object.  
64. The TCPA’s implementing regulation—47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c)—provides that
“[n]o person or entity shall initiate any telephone solicitation” to “[a] residential telephone
subscriber who has registered his or her telephone number on the national do-not-call registry of
persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is maintained by the federal
government.” See 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c).
65. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(e), provides that 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.1200(c) and (d) “are
applicable to any person or entity making telephone solicitations or telemarketing calls to
wireless telephone numbers to the extent described in the Commission’s Report and Order, CG
Docket No. 02-278, FCC 03-153, ‘Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991,’” which the Report and Order, in turn, provides as follows:
The Commission’s rules provide that companies making telephone solicitations to
residential telephone subscribers must comply with time of day restrictions and
must institute procedures for maintaining do-not-call lists. For the reasons
described above, we conclude that these rules apply to calls made to wireless
telephone numbers. We believe that wireless subscribers should be afforded the
same protections as wireline subscribers.
66. 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) further provides that “[n]o person or entity shall initiate
any call for telemarketing purposes to a residential telephone subscriber unless such person or
entity has instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive
telemarketing calls made by or on behalf of that person or entity. The procedures instituted must
meet the following minimum standards:
(1) Written policy. Persons or entitles making calls for telemarketing purposes
must have a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-not-call
(2) Training of personnel engaged in telemarketing. Personnel engaged in any
aspect of telemarketing must be informed and trained in the existence and use of
the do-not-call list.
(3) Recording, disclosure of do-not-call requests. If a person or entity making a
call for telemarketing purposes (or on whose behalf such a call is made) receives a
request from a residential telephone subscriber not to receive calls from that
person or entity, the person or entity must record the request and place the
subscriber’s name, if provided, and telephone number on the do-not-call list at the
time the request is made. Persons or entities making calls for telemarketing
purposes (or on whose behalf such calls are made) must honor a residential
subscriber’s do-not-call request within a reasonable time from the date such
request is made. This period may not exceed thirty days from the date of such
(4) Identification of sellers and telemarketers. A person or entity making a call for
telemarketing purposes must provide the called party with the name of the
individual caller, the name of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is
being made, and a telephone number or address at which the person or entity may
be contacted. The telephone number provided may not be a 900 number or any
other number for which charges exceed local or long distance transmission
(5) Affiliated persons or entities. In the absence of a specific request by the
subscriber to the contrary, a residential subscriber’s do-not-call request shall
apply to the particular business entity making the call (or on whose behalf a call is
made), and will not apply to affiliated entities unless the consumer reasonably
would expect them to be included given the identification of the caller and the
product being advertised.
(6) Maintenance of do-not-call lists. A person or entity making calls for
telemarketing purposes must maintain a record of a consumer’s request not to
receive further telemarketing calls. A do-not-call request must be honored for 5
years from the time the request is made.
67. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(c) by initiating, or causing to be initiated,
telephone solicitations to wireless and residential telephone subscribers such as Plaintiff and the
Class members who registered their respective telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call
Registry, a listing of persons who do not wish to receive telephone solicitations that is
maintained by the federal government. These consumers requested to not receive calls from
Defendant, as set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(3).
68. Defendant made more than one unsolicited telephone call to Plaintiff and
members of the Class within a 12-month period without their prior express consent to place such
calls. Plaintiff and members of the Class never provided any form of consent to receive
telephone calls from Defendant, and/or Defendant does not have a record of consent to place
telemarketing calls to them.
69. Defendant violated 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d) by initiating calls for telemarketing
purposes to residential and wireless telephone subscribers, such as Plaintiff and the Class,
without instituting procedures that comply with the regulatory minimum standards for
maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive telemarketing calls from them.
70. Defendant violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5) because Plaintiff and the Class received
more than one telephone call in a 12-month period made by or on behalf of Defendant in
violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200, as described above. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as
alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class suffered actual damages and, under section 47 U.S.C. §
227(c), are each entitled, inter alia, to receive up to $500 in damages for such violations of 47
C.F.R. § 64.1200.
71. To the extent Defendant’s misconduct is determined to be willful and knowing,
the Court should, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5), treble the amount of statutory damages
recoverable by the members of the Class.  


72. Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged as if
fully rewritten herein.
73. Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees and requests the attorneys’
fees be awarded.


74. Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the Class, demands a jury trial on all issues
triable to a jury.


 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Justin Mark Boise, individually and on behalf of the Class,
prays for the following relief:  
(a) An order certifying the Class as defined above, appointing Plaintiff as the
representative of the Class, and appointing his counsel HUGHES ELLZEY,
LLP as lead Class Counsel;
(b) An award of actual and statutory damages for each and every negligent
violation to each member of the Class pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227;
(c) An award of actual and statutory damages for each and every knowing
and/or willful violation to each member of the Class pursuant to 47 U.S.C
§ 227;
(d) An injunction requiring Defendant and its agents to cease all unsolicited
telephone calling activities, and otherwise protecting the interests of the
Class, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227;   
(e) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on monetary relief;
(f) An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and court costs; and
(g) All other and further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper.

The provided text is an excerpt from a document filed in this case. For a full understanding of the case, one should read the complete court file, including the response.

Javascript is required to view this map.