Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-17-2023

Case Style:

Joshua A. Lapin v. Everquote, Inc., et al.

Case Number: 4:22-cv-04058

Judge: Karen E. Schreier

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Dakota (Hughes County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Pierre Consumer Law Lawyer Directory

If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.

Defendant's Attorney: Berkley F. Fierro and Steven J. Morgan

Description: Sioux Falls, South Dakota consumer law lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued defendant on a fraud theory.

Federal Courthouse - Federal Courthouse - Sioux Falls, South Dakota

Federal Courthouse - Federal Courthouse - Sioux Falls, South Dakota>

MoreLaw Legal News For Sioux Falls

Lapin is a full-time traveling “digital nomad” who moves from place to place, generally internationally, in 30-day cycles, without a permanent residence in or out of the United States. See Docket 1 ¶ 2. Lapin received 108 commercial emails advertising auto insurance. See id. ¶¶ 5-7. Lapin alleges defendant “John Doe Sender” sent some of these emails to Lapin but does not know the identity of the other senders of the emails. See id. ¶¶ 9, 29. Lapin acknowledges EverQuote did not send these emails, but alleges EverQuote is the advertiser featured in them. Id ¶ 28.

EverQuote has its principal place of business in Massachusetts and is incorporated in Delaware. Id. ¶ 3. EverQuote “is in the business of generating [auto] insurance leads for [auto] insurance companies. Id. It is registered to do business in the State of South Dakota and has a registered agent in South Dakota. See id. ¶ 40, 45. On its website, it advertises South Dakota specific auto insurance, detailing the state's requirements. See id. ¶ 40

Lapin alleges 108 claims against John Doe Sender and EverQuote for various violations of SDCL § 37-24-47. For example, Lapin alleges some of the emails have a third-party domain name without the third-party's permission. Docket 1 ¶ 28. Lapin also alleges that some of the emails' header information is misleading or false because some of the emails have untraceable domain names and some of the “to” field in the emails incorrectly indicate Lapin's email. Id. ¶ 29. He further alleges the “from” fields of the emails he received improperly failed to identify EverQuote as the advertiser of the emails and failed to identify the senders of the emails. Id. ¶ 30. Based on these alleged violations, Lapin seeks the statutory liquidated damages amount of $1,000 per email, as well as reasonable costs associated with filing and maintaining this action and for service of process. See Docket 1 ¶ 37; SDCL § 37-24-48.

Outcome: Dismissed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case