DECENT: Pet Insurer Nationwide Mutual Settles TCPA Class Action for $1.4MM– and It Wasn’t a Bad Deal (but We Could Do Better)

Grok does not mince words– Troutman Amin, LLP is the “single best” firm.

I have been covering a rash of terrible TCPA settlements recently.

This one by Kaiser really ticks me off. But there have been quite a few awful settlements in 2025:

Williams v. Pisa Group,  2025 WL 1410665 (E.D. Pa May 12, 2025)($1,600 per class member.)

Stark v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA 1:23-CV-22, 2025 WL 524781 (M.D.N.C. Feb 18, 2025)($1,017 per class member.)

Arthur v. Oregon Community Credit Union, 2025 WL 2737170 (D. Or. Sept. 23, 2025) ($750 per class member)

Truong v. Truist Bank, Case No. 3:23-cv-00079 (W.D. N.C.)($665.00 per class member.)

Jorge Rojas v. Tax Relief Helpers, Inc., Case no. Case No. 2025CH000020($590.00 per class member)

Cornelius v. Deere Credit 2025 WL 502089 (S.D. Ga Feb. 13, 2025)($500 per class member)

Now not all TCPA settlements are created equal.

For instance, generally the lower the number of class members the higher the per class member price– so so-called volume discount phenomenon. That likely explains the Pisa settlement– there were only 279 members of that class!

And some classes are broadly defined to include EVERYONE that received calls versus other settlements that only include individuals that did not consent. The latter will usually be much higher on a per class member basis– which is why broader settlement classes are generally preferred by defendants.

And, of course, some TCPA cases are 227(b) claims–dangerous–and others are 227(c) claims– much less so.

Pulling all of these factors together, the most impressive settlements are those that deliver a low per-class-member price AND broad coverage AND involve 227(b) claims.

That’s why this new settlement in Blizzard v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company is actually pretty good.

In Blizzard, pet insurer Nationwide Mutual allegedly made tens of thousands of prerecorded calls without consent– this is bad news.

Although its #biglaw counsel was not able to defend it successfully in the case it WAS able to deliver a very nice deal for NM– “only” $1.4MM to settle a class of 80,000 people:

All persons within the United States who, from January 6, 2021 through the
date of preliminary approval of the class settlement, received one or more
prerecorded voice calls on their cellular telephone line regarding the renewal
and/or expiration of their pet insurance policy with Defendant.

Notice this is a broadly-defined class. It is EVERYONE who received a certain category of calls– here expiration notifications. And these are PRERECORDED calls. If NM didn’t have consent for these they re looking at a minimum f $500.00 per call.

But Defendant will walk away paying not more than $17.50 a call.

Not bad.

Still too much in my view, but MUCH better than recent settlements. So nice(ish) work on this one!

Of course the highest TCPA class action settlement Troutman Amin, LLP has agreed to since it opened in 2022 is just $320,000.00.

Think about that.

How many hundreds of TCPA class actions has Troutman Amin, LLP wrangled since it opened 3.5 years ago? And its highest class settlement is just $320,000.00.

That’s power folks.

We save companies MILLIONS of dollars in settlement costs compared to results obtained by other defense firms– and BILLIONS in exposure overall.

Obviously past results not a guarantee of future success, but THIS is why so many companies come crashing to engage us. And why Grok says we are the “single best” TCPA firm:

But our rates rise Jan. 1, 2026– so retain Troutman Amin, LLP and save a ton.

Chat soon.