Commercial General Liability Policy Covers ‘Blast’ Faxes: Florida Court

February 2, 2010

  • February 2, 2010 at 12:41 pm
    Frank Risalvato says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Now that Fax Blasts are obsolete – this is finally settled in some form. Question is – Who still uses Fax Blasts?

    I don’t even see anyone using email spam anymore as most are keeping priority communications via cell phone

  • February 2, 2010 at 1:50 am
    FormerFaxer says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Good Point Frank. Now Florida has cleared the way for more nuisance class action lawsuits, another way for the attorney’s to get rich off of the little guy’s misery. We had a carrier pay big bucks on a claim like this about 10 years ago. Since then, all carriers add the “eletronic communication exclusion endorsement” to the CGL.

  • February 2, 2010 at 4:44 am
    Matt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Isn’t this an entirely moot point?

    Besides the fact that faxes are so obsolete that sending one is like insulting yourself, ISO addressed this very concern in the 2007 ISO CGL revision.

    Under the exclusions section of Coverage B P/AI they added:

    “p. Distribution of Material In Violation of Statutes”

    This excludes “Personal and advertising injury” arising directly or indirectly out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate:
    (1) The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) including any amendment of or addition to such law,
    (2) The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (and amendments),
    (3) Any statute other than TCPA or CAN-SPAM that prohibits or limits the sending, transmitting, communicating or distribution of material or information.

    I thus find Mr. Passannante’s statement to be disingenuous. He said “insurance companies…improperly dispute their clear obligation under liability insurance policies to cover “blast fax” violations under TCPA.”

    Given both the specific reference to TCPA in part (1) and the vague “catch-all” part (3) of ISO’s amended exclusion I think the intent is very clear. Though based on the timeline of this case the violation of statute probably predated the form revision.

  • February 3, 2010 at 2:28 am
    jjwiedem says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The beauty is that the plaintiff pretty much settles with the defendent and says they will not sue unless the insurance company has to pay. Attorneys and courts never cease to amaze me. And in reality what are the actual damages. The piece of paper used byt he fax machine, the toner and wear and tear on the fax machine. Each claimant should get a check for 10 cents!

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *