A federal judge has denied Humana Inc.’s efforts to exclude expert testimony in a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by repeatedly making robocalls to individuals who were not Humana customers.
The plaintiff, David Elliot, alleges that Humana made numerous prerecorded calls to his telephone number despite being informed that it had reached the wrong person. Elliot, who was never a Humana customer, claims the calls persisted and that thousands of others may have received similar calls over a four-year period.
In support of his motion for class certification, Elliot presented the expert opinion of Anya Verkhovskaya, President and CEO of Class Experts Group, LLC. Verkhovskaya, who has extensive experience serving as a court-approved expert in TCPA cases, was retained to show that potential class members could be reliably identified and notified.
Her analysis relied on a declaration prepared by Christina Peters-Stasiewicz, Vice President at Class Experts Group. Peters-Stasiewicz used Structured Query Language (SQL) to analyze Humana’s internal call data, identifying 8,627 unique phone numbers that had either been flagged as wrong numbers on Humana’s internal do-not-call lists or had received a prerecorded call following a call coded as “disconnected.”
These phone numbers were divided into two categories:
Using this data, Verkhovskaya proposed a multi-step notification plan, including reverse lookups, cross-referencing subscriber information with carrier data, and issuing subpoenas to telephone carriers to identify account holders. Potential class members would then be sent claim forms asking whether they received a wrong-number call, whether they were Humana customers, and other verifying information.
Humana filed two motions: one to exclude Verkhovskaya’s expert report and testimony, and another to strike Peters-Stasiewicz’s declaration. The company argued that Verkhovskaya lacked formal training in data analytics, relied improperly on an undisclosed expert, and used an unreliable methodology. Humana also contended that Peters-Stasiewicz’s declaration amounted to expert testimony submitted without proper disclosure.
Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings denied both motions. The court found Verkhovskaya qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 based on her two decades of experience in class notification and TCPA litigation. Her lack of a formal degree in data science did not disqualify her, the court held, because she demonstrated specialized knowledge and practical experience.
The court also found her methodology — including the “reverse append” process and validation through sworn claim forms — to be sufficiently reliable and relevant at the class certification stage. Humana’s objections, the judge ruled, went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.
Peters-Stasiewicz’s declaration was not expert testimony, the court concluded, but rather a straightforward summary of Humana’s own data. The declaration was admissible, particularly at the class certification stage, where the court may consider reliable evidence even if it may not be admissible at trial.
Humana’s argument that Verkhovskaya’s methodology was flawed because it did not independently identify Elliot was also rejected. The court cited precedent showing that failure to capture a named plaintiff’s data does not render the methodology unreliable, especially where the data is drawn from the defendant’s own records.
The court emphasized that class certification does not require evidence to meet the strict admissibility standards applicable at trial. The evidence provided by Verkhovskaya and Peters-Stasiewicz met the threshold of reliability necessary for certification proceedings.
Though the case involves one of the nation’s largest health insurers, no insurance policy terms were at issue. The legal questions focused solely on telemarketing conduct governed by federal statute.
The ruling serves as a reminder for insurance carriers and administrators of the legal exposure surrounding TCPA compliance and the operational risks of automated outreach programs, especially when call records may later support class action claims.
Case: David Elliot v. Humana Inc.
Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky
Date: March 24, 2025
Judge: Rebecca Grady Jennings
