JUDGE KATHLEEN CARDONE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2[ r 

i 21 

BRANDON CALLIER, 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

V. § 

§ 

SunPath LTD, National Car Cure LLC, § 

Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc., and John § 

Does 1-4 

Defendants 

§ 

Plaintiff's Original Complaint 

Parties 

1. The Plaintiff is Brandon Callier, a natural person, and was present in Texas for all 

calls, in this case in El Paso County. 

2. SunPath Ltd. is a Delaware corporation and can be served via registered agent 

Registered Agent Solutions, Inc., 155 Office Plaza Drive, Suite A, Tallahassee, 

Florida 32301. 

3. Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and can be served via 

registered agent Corporation Service Company, 1201 Hays Street, Tallahassee, 

Florida 32301. 

4. National Care Cure, LLC is a Florida corporation and can be served via registered 

agent Zander Collins & Smith, at 1665 Palm Beach Lakes BLVD STE 215, West 

Palm Beach, FL 33401. 

5. John/Jane Does 1-4 are other liable parties currently unknown to the Plaintiff. 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 16
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. Jurisdiction. This Court has federal-question subject matter jurisdiction over 

Plaintiff's TCPA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the TCPA is a federal 

statute. Mims v. Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 372 (2012). This Court has 

supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claim arising under Texas 

Business and Commerce Code 305.053 because that claim arises from the same 

nucleus of operative fact, i.e., Defendants' telemarketing robocalls to Plaintiff; adds 

little complexity to the case; and doesn't seek money damages, so it is unlikely to 

predominate over the TCPA claims. 

7. Personal Jurisdiction. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over the 

defendant because they have repeatedly placed calls to Texas residents, and derive 

revenue from Texas residents, and they sell goods and services to Texas residents, 

including the Plaintiff. 

8. Venue. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(l)-(2) 

because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claimsthe calls and sale of 

goods and services directed at Texas residents, including the Plaintiffoccurred in 

this District and because the Plaintiff resides in this District. Residing in the Western 

District of Texas when he received a substantial if not every single call from the 

Defendants that are the subject matter of this lawsuit. 

9. This Court has venue over the defendants because the calls at issue were sent by or on 

behalf of the above named defendants to the Plaintiff, a Texas resident. 

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1991, 47 U.S.C. § 

227 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 16
10. In 1991, Congress enacted the TCPA in response to a growing number of consumer 

complaints regarding telemarketing. 

11. The TCPA makes it unlawful "to make any call (other than a call made for emergency 

purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using an 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice ... to any 

telephone number assigned to a ... cellular telephone service." 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1 )(A)(iii). 

12. The TCPA makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone call to any residential 

telephone line using an artificial or prerecorded voice to deliver a message without 

the prior express consent of the called party, unless the call is initiated for emergency 

purposes, is made solely pursuant to the collection of a debt owed to or guaranteed by 

the United States, or is exempted by rule or order" of the Federal Communication 

Commission ("FCC"). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(B). 

13. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in violation 

of § 227(b). 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

14. Separately, the TCPA bans making telemarketing calls without a do-not-call policy 

available upon demand. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c); 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1).' 

15. The TCPA provides a private cause of action to persons who receive calls in 

violation of § 227(c) or a regulation promulgated thereunder. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5). 

16. According to findings of the FCC, the agency vested by Congress with authority to 

issue regulations implementing the TCPA, automated or prerecorded telephone calls 

are a greater nuisance and invasion of privacy than live solicitation calls and can be 

'See Code of Federal Regulations, Title 47, Parts 40 to 60, at 425 (2017) 

(codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order). 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 16
costly and inconvenient. 

17. The FCC also recognizes that "wireless customers are charged for incoming calls 

whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used." In re Rules and 

Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 18 FCC Rcd. 14014, 

14115J 165 (2003). 

18. The FCC requires "prior express written consent" for all autodialed or prerecorded 

telemarketing robocalls to wireless numbers and residential lines. In particular: [A] 

consumer's written consent to receive telemarketing robocalls must be signed and be 

sufficient to show that the consumer: (1) received clear and conspicuous disclosure 

of the consequences of providing the requested consent, i.e., that the consumer will 

receive future calls that deliver prerecorded messages by or on behalf of a specific 

seller; and (2) having received this information, agrees unambiguously to receive such 

calls at a telephone number the consumer designates. In addition, the written 

agreement must be obtained without requiring, directly or indirectly, that the 

agreement be executed as a condition of purchasing any good or service. 

19. In the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 

1991, 27 FCC Red. 1830, 1844 ¶ 33 (2012) (footnote and internal quotation marks 

omitted). FCC regulations "generally establish that the party on whose behalf a 

solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations." In the Matter of 

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 10 FCC 

Red. 12391, 12397 ¶ 13 (1995). 

20. The FCC confirmed this principle in 2013, when it explained that "a seller ... may be 

held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 16
of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party 

telemarketers." In the Matter of the Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 

FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 ¶ 1 (2013). 

21. Under the TCPA, a text message is a call. Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 

F.3d 946, 951 52 (9th Cir. 2009). 

22. A corporate officer involved in the telemarketing at issue may be personally liable 

under the TCPA. E.g, Jackson Five Star Catering Inc. v. Beason, Case No. 10- 

10010, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159985, at *10 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 8,2013) ("MIany 

courts have held that corporate actors can be individually liable for violating the 

TCPA where they had direct, personal participation in or personally authorized the 

conduct found to have violated the statute." (internal quotation marks omitted)); 

Maryland v. Universal Elections, 787 F. Supp. 2d 408, 415 16 (D. Md. 2011) ("If 

an individual acting on behalf of a corporation could avoid individual liability, the 

TCPA would lose much of its force."). 

The Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053 

23. The Texas Business and Commerce code has an analogous portion that is related to 

the TCPA and was violated in this case. 

24. The Plaintiff may seek damages under this Texas law for violations of 47 USC 227 or 

subchapter A and seek $500 in statutory damages or $1500 for willful or knowing 

damages. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

25. The Plaintiff has received at least ten calls over 60 days to his cell phone, 915-383- 

4604 without consent and not related to an emergency purpose, selling the products 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 16
and services of SunPath Ltd. and National Car Cure, LLC for a car warranty through 

broker Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. 

26. The Plaintiff purchased a car warranty from the defendants and was mailed a policy in 

the mail to his home address. The Defendants are listed on page Dl (Exhibit 1) and 

D2 (Exhibit 2) of the policy. 

27. Mr. Callier received multiple calls from a variety of spoofed caller ID's that contained 

a pre-recorded message and were initiated using an automated telephone dialing 

system. The calls were on behalf of SunPath LTD, National Car Cure, LLC, and 

Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. The calls generally had a delay of 3-4 seconds of 

dead air before an audible tone connected the Plaintiff to a representative, indicating 

the calls were initiated using an ATDS. The Plaintiff received at least ten calls in 60 

days. 

28. Each and every call was initiated using a spoofed caller ID, and each and every 

telemarketer the Plaintiff spoke with failed to properly identify themselves and the 

parties they were calling on behalf of. 

29. "Neighborhood spoofing" designed to trick consumers into picking up the call as it 

appears to be a local call. This call contained a pre-recorded message after a 3-4 

second pause of dead air. Several of the calls used neighborhood spoofing tactics, 

others were real phone numbers from existing callers, innocent victims and businesses 

whose phone numbers were wrongfully appropriated by the defendants. 

30. Plaintiff received the following calls from the Defendants (Table A). 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 16
Date Time of Call Phone Number Name on Caller ID 

19-Nov-19 10:25 AM 915-383-5556 NA 

21-Nov-19 12:46 PM 915-383-1254 NA 

11-Dec-19 3:47 PM 915-383-2503 Romero Chavarri 

16-Dec-19 2:28 PM 915-383-4610 Marl Villanueva 

18-Dec-19 11:14AM 915-383-1861 Manuel Ochoa 

18-Dec-19 8:33 AM 915-383-4742 Maria Barraza 

19-Dec-19 1:11PM 915-383-5469 INIGUEZ 

21-Dec-19 3:50 PM 317-527-9965 Skylar Long 

6-Jan-20 10:52AM 407-272-8548 GValentin 

21-Jan-20 12:59 PM 915-383-5130 Vasquez Cordero 

31. Each and every call was placed without the maintenance of an internal do-not-call 

policy. Each and every call failed to identify the telemarketers and parties they were 

calling on behalf of Each and every call was placed without training their 

agents/employees on the use of an internal do-not-call policy. 

32. Mr. Callier has a limited data plan. Incoming text messages chip away at his monthly 

allotment. 

33. Mr. Callier has limited data storage capacity on his cellular telephone. Incoming 

telemarketing calls consumed part of this capacity. 

34. No emergency necessitated the calls 

35. Each call was sent by an ATDS. 

36. None of the defendants ever sent Mr. Callier any do-not-call policy. 

37. On information and belief, none of the defendants had a written do-not-call policy 

while it was sending Mr. Callier the unsolicited calls 

38. On information and belief, none of the defendants trained its agents engaged in 

telemarketing on the existence and use of any do-not-call list. 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 16
Vicarious Liability of the Sellers 

39. These parties are vicariously liable under the theories of actual authority, apparent 

authority, and ratification, and as well as liable because any other result would impair 

the underlying purpose of the TCPA. 

40. SunPath Ltd., National Car Cure, LLC and Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. are 

liable parties as the direct beneficiaries of the illegal telemarketing calls as they stood 

to gain the Plaintiff as a client and quoted the Plaintiff a contract offering their 

products and services. 

41. The contract shows that the beneficial parties who were gaining customers were 

National Car Cure, LLC, SunPath Ltd., Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc. 

THE SELLERS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE TO UPHOLD THE DETERRENT 

EFFECT AND PURPOSE OF THE TCPA 

42. As the court ruled in Jackson v Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., the defendant sellers 

should be held liable for their violations of the TCPA. Courts have looked at the 

purpose of the TCPA and found that not holding the sellers liable through vicarious 

liability would undermine the purpose of the TCPA. 

43. Every entity in the contract for car warranty services should be deemed a beneficiary 

of the calls and held liable for damages under the TCPA under vicarious liability. 

Sellers are in the best position to monitor and police third party telemarketer' s 

compliance with the TCPA and to hold otherwise would leave consumers without an 

effective remedy for telemarketing intrusions. 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 16
INJURY, HARM, DAMAGES, and ACTUAL DAMAGES AS A RESULT OF THE 

CALLS 

44. Defendant's calls harmed the Plaintiff by causing the very harm that Congress sought 

to preventa "nuisance and invasion of privacy." 

45. Defendant's calls harmed the Plaintiff by trespassing upon and interfering with 

Plaintiff's rights and interests in Plaintiff's cellular telephone. 

46. Defendant's calls harmed the Plaintiff by trespassing upon and interfering with 

Plaintiff's rights and interests in Plaintiff's cellular telephone line. 

47. Defendant's calls harmed the Plaintiff by intruding upon Plaintiff's seclusion. 

48. The Plaintiff has been harmed, injured, and damages by the calls including, but not 

limited to: 

Reduced Device Storage space 

Reduced data plan usage 

Invasion of privacy 

Lost time tending to text messages 

Decreased cell phone battery life 

More frequent charging of my cell phone resulting in reduced enjoyment and usage of 

my cell phone 

Reduced battery usage 

Annoyance 

Frustration 

Anger 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 16
The Plaintiff's cell phone is a residential number 

49. The calls were to the Plaintiff's cellular phone 915-383-4604, which is the Plaintiff's 

personal cell phone that he uses for personal, family, and household use. The Plaintiff 

maintains no landline phones at his residence and has not done so for at least 10 years 

and primarily relies on cellular phones to communicate with friends and family. The 

Plaintiff also uses his cell phone for navigation purposes, sending and receiving 

emails, timing food when cooking, and sending and receiving text messages. The 

Plaintiff further has his cell phone registered in his personal name, pays the cell phone 

from his personal accounts, and the phone is not primarily used for any business 

purpose. 

Violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053 

50. The actions of the defendants violated the Texas Business and Commerce Code 

305.053 by placing automated calls to a cell phone which violate 47 USC 227(b). The 

calls by the defendants violated Texas law by placing calls with a pre-recorded 

message to a cell phone which violate 47 USC 227(c)(5) and 47 USC 227(d) and 47 

USC 227(d)(3) and 47 USC 227(e). 

51. The calls by the defendants violated Texas law by spoofing the caller ID's per 47 

USC 227(e) which in turn violates the Texas statute. 

I. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Non-Emergency Robocalls to Cellular Telephones, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)) 

(Against All Defendants) 

1. Mr. Callier realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 16
2. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or 

agents constitute multiple violations of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(l)(A), by making 

non-emergency telemarketing robocalls to Mr. Callier' s cellular telephone number 

without his prior express written consent. 

3. Mr. Callier is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each 

such violation. 47 u.s.c. § 227(b)(3)(B). 

4. Mr. Callier is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each 

such knowing or willful violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3). 

5. Mr. Callier also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and 

their affiliates and agents from making non-emergency telemarketing robocalls to cellular 

telephone numbers without the prior express written consent of the called party. 

II. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

(Telemarketing Without Mandated Safeguards, 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)) 

(Against All Defendants) 

6. Mr. Callier realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 

7. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or 

agents constitute multiple violations of FCC regulations by making telemarketing 

solicitations despite lacking: 

a. a written policy, available upon demand, for maintaining a do-notcall list, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200(d)(1);2 

2 See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order). 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 16
b. training for the individuals involved in the telemarketing on the 

existence of and use of a do-not-call list, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 64.1 200(d)(2);3 and, 

c. in the solicitations, the name of the individual caller and the name 

of the person or entity on whose behalf the call is being made, in violation of 47 C.F.R. § 

64.1 200(d)(4).4 

8. Mr. Callier is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each 

such violation. 47 U.S.C. § 227(c)(5)(B). 

9. Mr. Callier is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each 

such knowing or willful violation. 47 u.s.c. § 227(c)(5). 

10. Mr. Callier also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants and 

their affiliates and agents from making telemarketing solicitations until and unless they 

(1) implement a do-not-call list and training thereon and (2) include the name of the 

individual caller and AFS's name in the solicitations. 

III.THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF: Violations of The Texas Business and 

Commerce Code 305.053 

11. Mr. Callier realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs. 

12. The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendants and/or their affiliates or 

agents constitute multiple violations of the Texas Business and Commerce Code 

305.053, by making non-emergency telemarketing robocalls to Mr. Callier's cellular 

telephone number without his prior express written consent in violation of 47 USC 227 et 

See id. at 425 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order). 

See id. at 425 26 (codifying a June 26, 2003 FCC order). 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 16
seq. The Defendants violated 47 Usc 227(d) and 47 usc 227(d)(3) and 47 usc 227(e) 

by using an ATDS that does not comply with the technical and procedural standards 

under this subsection. 

13. Mr. callier is entitled to an award of at least $500 in damages for each 

such violation. Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053(b) 

14. Mr. callier is entitled to an award of up to $1,500 in damages for each 

such knowing or willful violation. Texas Business and Commerce Code 305.053(c). 

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brandon callier prays for judgment against the 

defendants jointly and severally as follows: 

A. Leave to amend this complaint to name additional DOESs as they are 

identified and to conform to the evidence presented at trial; 

B. A declaration that actions complained of herein by Defendants violate the 

TCPA and Texas state law; c. An injunction enjoining Defendants and their affiliates and agents from 

engaging in the unlawful conduct set forth herein; 

D. An award of $3000 per call in statutory damages arising from the TCPA 

intentional violations jointly and severally against the corporation and individual for 

seven calls. 

E. An award of $1,500 in statutory damages arising from violations of the 

Texas Business and commerce code 305.053 

F. An award to Mr. callier of damages, as allowed by law under the TPA 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 13 of 16
G. An award to Mr. Callier of interest, costs and attorneys' fees, as allowed 

by law and equity 

H. Such further relief as the Court deems necessary, just, and proper. 

January 24, 2020 

Brandon Callier 

Pro-se 

6336 Franklin Trail 

El Paso, TX 79912 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 14 of 16
NATIONAL CAR CURE 

1665 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., #215 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 800-261-0096 

Ana Callier 6336 Franklin Trail Dr 

El Paso, TX 79912-8154 Congratulations! Your valuable mechanical breakdown protection is detailed in the enclosed contract booklet. Please look it over and call with any questions you may have. ; Thank you for your purchase; we look forward to servicing your protection needs. Please call us for a quote on any other vehicle in your household. Vehicles under 150,000 mfleS? may qualify for additional coverages, and multi-vehicle discounts are available, Be sure to familiarize yourself with the coverage, maintenance req uirements an procedures in the event of a mechanical breakdown. Proper maintenance of your vehlc will contribute to a trouble free driving experience. You should follow your vehic manufacturer's recommended maintenance for your driving habits. We encourage you to store your new service agreement in your vehiàle. This docume contains important numbers needed in the event of a breakdown. 

Welcome to our family of vehicle owners that have the peace of mind and financIal security of mechanical breakdown protection. 

THANK YOUAGAINI 

C%ík &a4 

Protection Specialist 

IMPORTANT CONTACT NUMBERS: Claims: 888-990-7786 Roadside: 888-878-8259 

Contract Declarations 

Contract Holder Service Contract No. 

Ana Callier 

SAF078460 

Street Address 

6336 Franklin Trail Dr 

City, State, Zip Phone 

El Paso, TX 79912-8154 915-383-4604 

Year Make Model VIN 

2013 LEXUS RX360 2128K1BA900169619 

Odometer Vehicle Pchase Price ContractPurthase Date Vehicle Class 

45,883 1212712019 2 

Seller/Dealer/Vendor Name l.D. 

NATIONAL CAR CURE NCC461O 

Address 

1665 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., #215 

City, State, Zip Phone 

West Palm Beach, FL 33401 800-261-0096 

FIane Company Payment Terms 

$unslrnp INSTALLMEI41 AREt1E4T 

Plan Name 

Sunpath Secure Adv Platinum New 

Plan Term Plan Code Deductible 

Months 60 Miles 100,000 SPSAPN $100.00 

* Validation Period Surcharges 

30 days and 1,000 miles 4WD 

Contract Purchase Price Options ** 

$3338.00 

The purchase of this contract is not required to either obtain l9nancing or to purchase the motor vehicle. You have the right to transfer this Service Contract on the specified vehicle only to a subsequent private owner. Refer to the Transfer provision. The undersigned purchaser of this Contract achnowledges that parts and labor benefits are subject to the validation period stated above PER PHONE 

Certification: The undersigned Purchaser of this Service Contract has selected the above coverage and options and understands that depending upon the coverage plan selected that parts and labor benefits are subject to the validations stated above. I agree that I have read and understand the above Contract provisions and implied warranty disclosure. 

12/27/2019 PER PHONE Christopher Bowling 

Date Service Contract Purchaser Signature Seller/Dealer/Vendor Representative 

- * It Dl 

k WSTDO NWS-SP-$A-PLATINIJM (12-13) 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 15 of 16
Administered by: SunPath Ltd. 

Administrative Office: 

25 l3raintree Hill Parh, Suite 100 

Braintree, MA 02184 

(888) 990-7786 

This Contract is between You, the Purchaser and 

Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc., the Provider/Obligor. 

800 Superior Avenue E., 2l Floor 

Cleveland, OH 44114 

(866) 927-3097 

In Florida, the Provider/Obligor and Administrator is SunPath LTD Corp. d/b/a 

SunPath LTD Corp. of Delaware 

FL License #19943, (888) 990-7786 

NWS-SP-$A-PLATINUM (12.13) 

'I 

I 

: 

This SERVICE CONTRACT is an agreement between YOU and US. WE. US, OUR and PROVIDER refer to Northcoast Warranty Services, Inc., who is the party responsible to YOU for the benefits under this SERVICE CONTRACT, except in any states where required by law, where WE, US, OUR and PROVIDER mean the DEALER from whom YOU purchased or leased the VEHICLE described on the 

DECLARATION PAGE. YOU, YOUR and CONTRACT HOLDER refers to 

YOU, the purchaser of this SERVICE CONTRACT and the Vehicle described in the DECLARATION PAGE of this SERVICE CONTRACT. WE have contracted with SunPath, Ltd., 25 Braintree Hill Parh, Suite 100, Braintree, MA 02184, 888-990-7786, hereinafter referred to as ADMINISTRATOR, to administer this SERVICE CONTRACT. All 

inquiries should be directed to the ADMINISTRATOR. Toll-free assistance is available at 888-990-7786. In Florida this SERVICE CONTRACT is between YOU and SunPath LTD Corp. d/b/a SunPath LTD Corp of Delaware, Florida Certificate of 

Authority No.: 19943. SunPath LTD Corp. d/b/a SunPath LTD Corp of 

Delaware is also the SERVICE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR and handles all administrative functions of this SERVICE CONTRACT. All inquiries should be directed to SunPath LTD Corp. of Delaware at 888- 990-7786. 

AUTHORIZED REPAIR(S), APPROVED REPAIR(S): All repairs must be 

approved and authorized by the ADMINISTRATOR as a condition of COVERAGE. Repairs performed without the prior approval or authorization from the ADMINISTRATOR will not be covered, except as provided for under Emergency Repairs. 

BREAKDOWN, MECHANICAL BREAKDOWN, MECHANICAL FAILURE: Defects in materials and worhmanship of a COVERED PART to perform the function for which it was designed by its manufacturer. COVERAGE: The coverage afforded to YOU for YOUR VEHICLE is determined by the PLAN TYPE selected on the DECLARATION PAGE and more fully described in the PLAN COVERAGE section of this SERVICE CONTRACT. COVERED PART(S): Parts or components listed under the PLAN 

COVERAGE and subject to YOUR responsibilities for VEHICLE maintenance under the YOUR OBLIGATIONS section and subject to conditions described under "EXCLUSIONS". 

NWS-SP-SA-PLATINUM (12.13) 

Case 3:20-cv-00023-KC Document 1 Filed 01/24/20 Page 16 of 16