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

HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al

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 www.pacer.gov or contact the clerk of the relevant court.

Case Number: 
2:12-cv-04034 Search Pacer
ACE Group party(s): 
Opposing Party: 
Herz Equipment Rental Corporation
Court Type: 
Federal
US District Court: 
District of New Jersey
Date Filed: 
Jun 29 2012

"Count I
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47.U.S.C. §227

15. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

16. In accordance with K.S.A. 6-23 Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Telephone consumer Protection Act, 47.U.S.C. §227, on behalf of the following class of persons
    All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the filing of this section, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages of meaterial advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of Defendant, and (3) with respect to when Defendant cannot provide evidence of prior express permission or invitation for the sending of such faxes.

17. A class action is proper underK.s.A. 60-23 in that;
(a) On information and belief that class consist of thirty-eight or more persons in Kansas and throughout the United STates and is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
(b) There are questions of fact or law common to the  class that predominate over question affecting only individual class members, including:
    (i) Whether Defendant engaged in pattern in a pattern os sending unsolicited fax advetisments;
        (ii) Whether the facsimiles sent by Defendant were material advertising the commercial availability of property, goods, ore services;
    (iii) The manner and method Defendant used to compile to obtain, the list of fax members to which it sent Exhibit A and other unsolicited fixes advertisement;
    (iv) Whether Defendant sent advertising faxes without obtaining the receipts prior express permission or invitation for the faxes;
    (v) Whether Defendant violated the provisions of 47 U.S.C.§ 227;
    (vi) Whether Plaintiff and the other class members are entitled to statutory damages;
    (vii) Whether Defendant engaged in willful or wanton conduct entitling Plaintiff and the other members of the class to treble damages.

18. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other class members.  Plaintiff's counsel are experiences in handling class actions and claims involving unsolicited faxes.  Neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff's counsel has any interests adverse or in conflict with the class.

19. A class action is an appropriate method for adjucating this controversy fairly and efficiency.  The interest of the individual class members in individually controlling the persecution of separate claims is small and individual actions are not economically feasible.

20. The TCPA makes unlawful the "use of any telephone facsimile machine, computer or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine 47 U.S.C § 227(a)(4).

"

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.