Horton v. Molina Healthcare of Texas: Buying a Policy After Unidentified Texts Does Not Make the Insurer Liable

Allegations

The plaintiff alleged that his cell number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry since 2011. He received a November 2024 text announcing open enrollment, two January 2025 texts saying his 2025 health plan "may require attention," and a text dated September 2025, after he filed suit, about renewal. None identified the sender. He called one of the listed numbers and bought the insurer's policy from an agent using an outside email domain, alleging that he was "forced to purchase" to learn who was behind the texts. He asserted autodialer, Do Not Call, internal do-not-call policy, caller identification, and Texas claims.

No Plausible Link to the Insurer

The plaintiff did not allege that any sending or callback number belonged to the insurer. His own allegations pointed to other entities: one number auto-replied about selling homes, and the agent worked for a separate company. The recommendation concludes that the later purchase of a policy, from an entity other than the insurer, does not support an inference that the sender was the insurer's agent. Conclusory assertions that the insurer hired a marketer were insufficient. The caller identification claim failed for the same reason.

No Plausible Autodialer Use

Under Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid, an automatic telephone dialing system must use a random or sequential number generator. Indirect allegations can suffice, but these did not. There was no short code, only one screenshot, and the messages differed in content and purpose. Two suggested an existing plan, which undercut the alleged absence of any relationship. The plaintiff's later admission that he had held the insurer's policy until 2018 contradicted his complaint, and the court need not accept internally inconsistent allegations.

Do Not Call and Internal Policy Claims

Messages saying an existing plan "may require attention" or was eligible for renewal were not telephone solicitations encouraging a purchase. At most one message could qualify, and a Do Not Call claim requires more than one within twelve months. On the internal policy claim, the plaintiff alleged only that he requested a copy of the insurer's do-not-call policy through its member portal and received none. He never alleged asking to be placed on an internal do-not-call list, which the recommendation found insufficient. The Texas claim, derivative of the TCPA claims, also failed.

Disposition

The plaintiff could seek leave to amend through objections. Otherwise, dismissal with prejudice was recommended.

Practical Implications

Insurers and other brands sold through independent agents are not liable merely because a consumer ends up buying their product. Plaintiffs must allege facts tying the sender to the brand, such as ownership of the numbers, branding in the messages, or a contractual relationship. As to message content, service and renewal notices referencing an existing plan are unlikely to be telephone solicitations.

Read the Northern District of Texas recommendation in Horton v. Molina Healthcare of Texas.