Christopher Bilek v. Federal Insurance Company
8 F.4th 581
| 7th Cir. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Bilek received two prerecorded robocalls (Sept. 20 & 26, 2019) soliciting health insurance; pressing 1 connected him to live agents who quoted insurance underwritten by Federal Insurance Company (allegedly "Chubb" family).
- Bilek sued under the TCPA and Illinois Automatic Telephone Dialing Act, alleging he did not consent to the automated calls and that the calls used an ATDS/prerecorded voice.
- Alleged business chain: Federal Insurance Company contracted with Health Insurance Innovations (HII) to sell its insurance; HII contracted with third-party lead generators to conduct telemarketing; the lead generators allegedly made the robocalls.
- Bilek pleaded vicarious liability theories (actual authority, apparent authority, ratification) to attribute the callers’ conduct to Federal Insurance and HII.
- The district court dismissed Federal Insurance for failure to state a claim (Rule 12(b)(6)) and dismissed HII for lack of personal jurisdiction (Rule 12(b)(2)).
- The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding Bilek plausibly alleged actual authority as to Federal Insurance and that an agent’s forum-directed contacts may be imputed to a principal for specific personal jurisdiction, so HII was subject to suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint plausibly alleges actual authority over lead generators (Rule 12(b)(6)) | Lead generators were authorized to use Federal Insurance's trade name, approved scripts, proprietary pricing; real-time pairing of callers with Federal quotes supports control. | Allegations lack specifics about control (timing, quantity, geography); mere contractual relationships are insufficient. | Reversed: allegations plausibly state actual authority at pleading stage; dismissal improper. |
| Whether apparent authority was plausibly alleged | (Also pleaded) principals made representations via agents and allowed use of branding/scripts. | Plaintiff only alleges agents made communications to him, not manifestations by principals. | Not decided on merits; court found actual authority sufficient and declined to reach apparent authority. |
| Whether ratification was plausibly alleged | Defendants accepted benefits from calls (sales, payments), implying ratification. | District court found no benefit alleged because plaintiff did not purchase insurance from the calls. | Not decided on merits; court remanded without resolving ratification. |
| Whether Illinois courts have specific personal jurisdiction over HII by imputing lead-generator contacts | Lead generators’ calls into Illinois, plus HII paired agents with quotes, emailed quotes, and allowed data entry—alleges actual authority tying conduct to HII. | Without a plausible agency relationship, HII cannot be haled into Illinois based on callers’ acts. | Reversed: an agent’s contacts may be attributed to a principal for specific jurisdiction; Bilek alleged prima facie agency tying HII to forum contacts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes pleading plausibility standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading must include factual content permitting reasonable inference of liability)
- Dish Network L.L.C. v. (7th Cir.), 954 F.3d 970 (agency principles can support TCPA vicarious liability)
- Warciak v. Subway Restaurants, 949 F.3d 354 (contract alone does not necessarily create agency for vicarious TCPA liability)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (limits on general jurisdiction; agency contacts relevant to specific jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (purposeful availment for specific jurisdiction)
- Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (minimum contacts standard)
- Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Ct., 480 U.S. 102 (agent-directed activities can bear on purposeful availment)
- Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068 (third-party contacts may be imputed under agency for jurisdictional purposes)
- Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 792 F.3d 1373 (imputing third-party contacts to establish specific personal jurisdiction)
- Curry v. Revolution Labs, LLC, 949 F.3d 385 (Illinois long-arm and constitutional limits on jurisdiction)