Carter v. Health Insurance King Agency, LLC
3:25-cv-00005
S.D. IowaJul 21, 2025Background
- Montwain Carter, a resident of Iowa registered on the National Do-Not-Call Registry, alleges he received unsolicited health insurance solicitation calls from a person identifying as "Timothy Reese," purportedly on behalf of Health Insurance King Agency, LLC.
- Carter claims these calls, including one answered call in which "Reese" identified himself and solicited insurance, violated the Telephone Communications Privacy Act (TCPA).
- Health Insurance King moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting they had no relevant business contacts with Iowa, their employee Reese would have been acting outside his authority, and their records show no calls to the relevant numbers.
- At this early stage, the court is required to resolve factual disputes in favor of the plaintiff; neither side requested an evidentiary hearing.
- The court found there was sufficient evidence to infer that Reese, who is licensed in Iowa and is an employee of Health Insurance King, made the calls either within his actual or apparent authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Personal jurisdiction under TCPA | Calls from Reese, an employee, targeted Iowa; jurisdiction exists | No relevant contacts; calls not made or outside authority | Sufficient minimum contacts; motion to dismiss denied |
| Reese's authority (actual/apparent) | Reese was acting within actual/apparent authority to solicit insurance | If he called at all, Reese was acting outside his authority | Carter's evidence sufficient at this stage |
| Sufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence | Carter's sworn declaration and call context are enough | Health Insurance King's records show no calls; no direct evidence | Disputes resolved in plaintiff's favor for this motion |
| Scope of discovery | No limitation needed; personal jurisdiction intertwined with merits | Discovery should be limited to jurisdictional issues | Full discovery permitted, no narrowing at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (specific jurisdiction requires purposeful availment; defendant must deliberately reach out to forum)
- Fastpath, Inc. v. Arbela Techs. Corp., 760 F.3d 816 (Eighth Circuit test for minimum contacts and personal jurisdiction)
- Hawkeye Gold, LLC v. China Nat’l Materials Indus. Imp. & Exp. Corp., 89 F.4th 1023 (burdens and factors in personal jurisdiction analysis)
- Creative Calling Sols., Inc. v. LF Beauty Ltd., 799 F.3d 975 (on reviewing facts in plaintiff's favor at 12(b)(2) stage)
- Myers v. Bennett L. Offs., 238 F.3d 1068 (employee conduct within scope of apparent authority may establish jurisdiction)