Dobronski shows how to plead allegations against tcpa-violating insurance companies
- Peter Schneider
- Dec 23
- 5 min read
Updated: Dec 23
A bunch of insurance companies have a great little scam going. They employ the use of insurance agents, who then in turn employ the use of telemarketers.
The insurance companies give the insurance agents the use of their computer system to quote and sell their insurance, but when sued for the tcpa-violating telemarketing calls, disclaim any responsibility for their agents. Dobronski is taking Mutual of Omaha and an agent to task (this is a follow on to an earlier story here) and a recent opinion in Dobronski v. Daraujo, No. 25-10169, 2025 LX 530323 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2025) shows how is allegations helped pin them to the wall. As usual all allegations are pulled from the opinions or other documents on the docket. I have no personal knowledge of any of this, I simply assume the allegations and statements are true as alleged for the sake of reporting. Follow the docket and the outcome for the ultimate true of the allegations.
Mr. Dobronski received over a dozen solicitation calls hawking final expense insurance and as is Mr. Dobronski's trademark, he got to the bottom of it with a canary trap.
In a canary-trap scheme, the canary trapper answers a telemarketing call, pretends to be interested in whatever the caller is selling, and gives the caller a unique, fake name. Then, if someone calls back later and uses the fake name, the trapper can prove both calls are connected.
Some or all of these calls were initiated by or on behalf of a Ms. Daraujo - agent for Mutual of Omaha. There is a lot more about the calls in the docket entries below, but this article focuses on Mutual of Omaha's attempt to get out of the lawsuit by claiming Mr. Dobronski hadn't sufficiently tied them to the calls.
Omaha relies on a 2013 declaratory ruling [to claim Dobronski could not get to Omaha under a vicarious liability theory] from the FCC in In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC (“Dish Network”), 28 FCC Rcd. 6574 (2013). There, the FCC explained that “a seller is not directly liable for a violation of the TCPA unless it initiates a call, but may be held vicariously liable under federal common law agency principles for a TCPA violation by a third-party telemarketer.” Thus, the FCC recognizes that a plaintiff cannot recover against a defendant for a call that violated the TCPA unless the defendant was directly or vicariously responsible for initiating the call. . . . [The next two sections probably seems like a frolic and detour but it is going somewhere] Dobronski does not claim that Defendants violated the TCPA’s substantive provisions; he claims that they violated various TCPA regulations. And the Act does not speak to whether and when a person is liable for violating such regulations; the Act says only that under the right circumstances a plaintiff may recover for such violations. See 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), (c)(5). This suggests that Congress delegated to the FCC the responsibility for determining those circumstances. Defendants therefore must explain why, under the TCPA regulations Dobronski alleges they violated, he fails to plead a viable theory of liability . . . under the right circumstances courts must still apply Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), which demands deference to an administrative agency’s interpretation of its own, ambiguous rules. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U.S. 558, 573–79 (2019); United States v. Prather, 138 F.4th 963, 974 (6th Cir. 2025) (“Loper Bright did not overrule Auer.”) . . . subsection 227(c) does not define what it means to receive a call “on behalf of” an entity. The word “behalf” is defined in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as meaning “interest” or “benefit,” and the phrase “on behalf of” is defined as meaning “in the interest of” or “as a representative of.” It goes without saying that another common meaning of the phrase is “for the benefit of.” The second element is self-explanatory. [We are getting to the payoff] Dobronski’s complaint alleges sufficient facts to establish a principal-agent relationship between the Defendants . . . a principal is liable for another’s conduct if the other person acted “with apparent authority.” And a person acts with apparent authority “when a third party reasonably believes the [person] has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations.” [This is where pro-se plaintiff's can struggle - the telemarketer and Ms. Daraujo were Mutual of Omaha's agents and their claim to represent Mutual of Omaha isn't enough, Mutual of Omaha has to do or say something to evince this relationship with their agents. But what is that something?] “Apparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal's legal relations with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal's manifestations.” 1 Restatement Agency, 3d, § 203. “The apparent power of an agent is to be determined by the act of the principal and not by the acts of the agent.” Brainard v American Skandia Life Assurance Corp, 432 F3d 655, 663 (CA 6, 2005) (cleaned up). Dish Network provides the following example of circumstances that might impose liability on a seller under a theory of apparent authority: [The court showed the winning argument, these insurance company agents are accessing policy information and pricing under the insurance company's exclusive control] [A]pparent authority may be supported by evidence that the seller allows the outside sales entity access to information and systems that normally would be within the seller's exclusive control, including: access to detailed information regarding the nature and pricing of the seller's products and services or to the seller's customer information. The ability by the outside sales entity to enter consumer information into the seller's sales or customer systems, as well as the authority to use the seller's trade name, trademark and service mark may also be relevant. It may also be persuasive that the seller approved, wrote or reviewed the outside entity's telemarketing scripts. Finally, a seller would be responsible under the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] for the unauthorized conduct of a third-party telemarketer that is otherwise authorized to market on the seller's behalf if the seller knew (or reasonably should have known) that the telemarketer was violating the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] on the seller's behalf and the seller failed to take effective steps within its power to force the telemarketer to cease that conduct. Dish Network explained that apparent authority for a TCPA violation by a “seller” may be supported by evidence showing that the seller gave a third-party telemarketer “access to detailed information regarding the nature and pricing of the seller’s products and services orto [sic] the seller’s customer information” and “[t]he ability . . . to enter consumer information into the seller’s sales or customer systems.”
This opinion shows the facts and argument to develop in the complaint. Highlight the facts showing the agent had the authority to access the insurance company's pricing system, including any specific prices quoted or contracts sent on the insurance company's letterhead as was done here.
Got a Case Like This?
If you’ve encountered similar issues with telemarketers, debt collectors, or bankruptcy-related harassment, we might feature your story in a future blog post. Email your situation or legal filing to peter@nwdebtresolution.com or nathen@nwdebtresolution.com.
Are telemarketers or debt collectors bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle debt and TCPA lawsuits in Washington State and Oregon and may be able to help.
📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000
📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com
Note: The opinions in this blog are mine (Peter Schneider) and do not constitute legal advice. If you're considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, contact me for a legal consultation.
Comments