Reported / Citable
Background
Timothy A. Aguilar, proceeding pro se, sued Liberty Bankers Life Insurance Company alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and comparable Texas law. Aguilar alleged he received at least 163 telemarketing calls from spoofed phone numbers soliciting final expense life insurance while registered on both the federal Do Not Call Registry (since 2012) and the Texas Do Not Call Registry (since August 2023). He claimed Liberty Bankers hired telemarketers, including Claudia Tradari Napoletano, to place these calls.
To establish Liberty’s involvement, Aguilar purchased a life insurance policy from Napoletano, then cancelled it in August 2025 and revoked any consent to further calls. Liberty Bankers returned the $90.36 in premiums, though the check contained language purporting to waive claims. Aguilar refused to endorse it. Liberty Bankers moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Liberty Bankers’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, finding that Aguilar failed to adequately allege vicarious liability under any recognized agency theory. First, regarding actual authority, the complaint contained only conclusory allegations that Napoletano and others were Liberty’s agents authorized to telemarket. It failed to allege that Liberty gave them actual authority to violate the TCPA. Indeed, Liberty’s contracts with Napoletano expressly prohibited automatic dialing, pre-recorded messages, and calls to Do Not Call numbers.
Second, the apparent authority theory failed because Aguilar did not allege that Liberty Bankers itself made any representations about the telemarketers’ authority. He alleged only conversations with agents and contractors, not with Liberty employees. Apparent authority requires reliance on representations or conduct by the principal itself, not third-party agents.
Third, ratification failed because Liberty did not retain any benefit from the allegedly unlawful calls—it returned all proceeds to Aguilar. The court held that ratification requires the principal to retain benefits after acquiring knowledge of the transaction. The settlement language on the returned check was deemed immaterial since Liberty had already ceded all financial benefit back to Aguilar.
Key Takeaways
- TCPA plaintiffs must allege specific facts establishing agency liability—conclusory assertions that defendants “hired” telemarketers are insufficient to state a claim.
- Vicarious liability requires pleading actual authority (control over manner and means), apparent authority (reliance on principal’s representations), or ratification (retention of benefits)—each presents distinct pleading requirements.
- A company’s contractual prohibition on TCPA violations strengthens its defense against claims of implied or apparent authority to commit such violations.
- Ratification theory fails where a defendant returns all proceeds from an allegedly unlawful transaction, eliminating the financial benefit element essential to ratification.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies pleading requirements for TCPA suits targeting companies for telemarketers’ violations. It establishes that mere allegations of a hiring relationship are insufficient; plaintiffs must plead concrete facts about how the defendant authorized, clothed with authority, or ratified the unlawful conduct. The decision also shows that companies can mitigate exposure through explicit contractual prohibitions on TCPA violations and prompt return of proceeds from allegedly illegal sales.
The court left the door open for amendment, requiring Aguilar to file by July 31, 2026 with a motion explaining how an amended complaint would adequately allege vicarious liability. This underscores that dismissal for failure to state a claim on agency grounds does not preclude future recovery if proper factual allegations are pled.