Humana Says It Has No Links to Vendor That Made Unlawful Calls

Plaintiff Antionette Woodard can’t establish that U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago has personal jurisdiction over her Telephone Consumer Protection Act claim against Humana, said Humana’s memorandum Monday (docket 1:23-cv-00979) in support of her motion to dismiss. Humana telegraphed the motion in an April 27 joint status report with Woodward’s counsel (see 2304280006). Woodard alleges Humana is vicariously liable for the incessant insurance solicitation calls its third-party telemarketing vendor, Healthhubb, made on Humana's behalf to her cellphone, though her number was listed on the national do not call registry for months. Woodward’s attempt to allege specific jurisdiction fails “in the face of two critical facts,” said the memorandum. Humana didn’t place the calls at issue “and is therefore not subject to direct liability for those calls,” it said. Humana also didn’t control, authorize or even know of the actions of the entity that allegedly did, Healthubb, and thus can’t be “vicariously liable for Healthubb’s actions,” it said. Woodward’s complaint acknowledges Humana didn’t make the calls, it said. As for the second fact, Woodward speculates in “a series of conclusory allegations” that Humana and Healthubb are business partners and that Healthubb “acted at the behest of Humana when it placed the alleged calls,” it said. But those “suppositions” are wrong, it said. Humana did an internal investigation after being served with Woodard’s lawsuit “to determine whether it has any relationship” with Healthubb, said a declaration by Sarah Elmer, Humana’s market vice president. “That investigation concluded that Humana has never paid Healthubb for leads or call transfers and has never authorized Healthubb to market or otherwise purport to sell Humana products,” it said.