[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-10951
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:11-cv-61880-DMM
FREDY D. OSORIO,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
versus
STATE FARM BANK, F.S.B.,
Defendant – Third-Party Plaintiff – Appellee,
versus
CLARA BETANCOURT,
Third-Party Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
(March 28, 2014)
Excerpt-
If, for example, State Farm is found to have made its first three autodialed calls in reasonable reliance on Betancourt’s negligent misrepresentation (causing a total of $1,500 in statutory damages, or $4,500 if willful), but hundreds more calls were made in spite of a subsequent revocation of consent, then spending $132,000 to defend a claim with a maximum potential recovery of only $4,500 would appear unreasonable. This issue will thus require consideration by the district court on remand.
V. CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons set forth above, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment to State Farm on Osorio’s TCPA claim, REVERSE its grant of summary judgment to State Farm on the latter’s negligent-misrepresentation claim against Betancourt, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
