Liberty Mutual appeared to be trapped in an absolute nightmare of a TCPA class action in Indiana.

It had allegedly purchased a lead from a website called InsuredNation and made prerecorded calls to a woman named Yevonne Powers.

The problem?

Liberty Mutual allegedly wasn’t on the lead form or any associated partner pages.

Eesh.

In the old days (like, last week) Liberty Mutual would have been in a world of hurt. It allegedly made thousands of robocalls to consumers like Plaintiff who had not provided valid consent to receive calls. And if those facts are true Liberty Mutual would have been facing massive exposure.

I use the past tense here because with the new McKesson case coming down from the Supreme Court on Friday the application of the FCC’s CFR concerning express written consent is now very much in doubt. Whereas that CFR provision likely required LiMu’s name to be on the form, the TCPA’s express consent requirement stripped of the regulatory provision likely does not.

In Powers v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 2025 WL 1744225 (N.D. Ind. June 23, 2025) LiMu was sued in Indiana over calls made to a Virginia resident. LiMu moved to dismiss the claim on jurisdictional grounds contending it had not purposely availed itself of Indiana jurisdiction.

The Court agreed with LiMu noting that Plaintiff was in Virginia at the time of the calls and LiMu had not directed any conduct into Indiana for the court to exercise jurisdiction over it.

Interestingly one of LiMu’s employees involved with the campaign actually did reside in Indiana but the Court held that mere coincidence was not sufficient to convey jurisdiction.

So the case was dismissed. That’s great for LiMu but it is also only temporary. The case can be re-filed in Virginia or wherever LiMu is subject to general jurisdiction. So… yay, but not really.