Case Law Update: NRRM (CarShield) v. Pelican Investment Holdings — Court Denies Two Motions to Dismiss Over Switch-Your-Coverage Sales Calls

On September 24 and 25, 2026, United States District Judge Maria A. Lanahan denied two separate motions to dismiss in NRRM, LLC v. Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-01566-MAL, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs — NRRM, LLC d/b/a CarShield and American Auto Shield, LLC — allege that a competing telemarketing operation called their customers and falsely told them repair shops no longer accept CarShield coverage. The case, docketed in October 2025, proceeds on an eleven-count Second Amended Complaint against Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC, National Administrative Service Co., LLC (“NASC”), and Sing for Service, LLC d/b/a MEPCO; the claims against the first two are now past the pleading stage.

What the Complaint Alleges

The factual background of each order opens the same way: “This case is about communications regarding vehicle extended warranties.” According to the allegations the court summarized, “Pelican would call CarShield’s existing and prospective customers about switching their coverage to a Pelican plan.” On those calls, Pelican agents made three statements CarShield says were false: that “repair shops and car dealerships no longer accept CarShield coverage”; that CarShield “used unrelated third parties to administer and pay repair claims”; and that, unlike CarShield, “Pelican administers its own claims.” CarShield also alleges Pelican used its confidential customer information to target the calls, and that consumers “called or attempted to cancel CarShield coverage, purchased Pelican plans, or asked for refunds, clarification, or emergency assistance.”

Those are allegations, not findings. As the court noted in a footnote to each order, “All facts pleaded in the complaint are assumed true when deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”

The September 24 Order: Pelican’s Motion Denied in Full

Pelican moved to dismiss all five counts against it: false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), injurious falsehood, unfair competition, tortious interference, and misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act. The court denied the motion on every ground.

Pelican argued the calls were not widespread enough to be “commercial advertising or promotion.” The court disagreed at this stage, reasoning that CarShield’s allegation of “hundreds” of inbound customer calls “suggests that many more calls may have occurred, as it is reasonable to infer that most people do not have the time or interest in following up on calls like these.” Pelican also argued only one of the three statements was false — which did not help it, because, as the court put it, “Pelican concedes that the statement concerning Pelican administering its own claims is false” — and one false statement is enough.

The September 25 Order: The Administrator Stays in the Case

The second order has the wider reach. NASC — the company whose vehicle service contracts Pelican was selling — argued it could not answer for what a separate marketing company’s agents said on the phone. The court held CarShield had adequately pleaded an agency theory, pointing to allegations that the written agreement between them “grants NASC authority and control over the advertising, marketing, and sale of NASC-administered plans,” and that “NASC has input and control over … call scripts, sales talking points, and rebuttal points used by Pelican’s sales agents.” On that pleading, the court wrote, “it does not matter if NASC specifically asked Pelican to make the false statements because ‘the wrongful acts of an agent can be imputed to the principal where an agency relationship exists.’”

NASC also raised, for the first time, an objection that the Missouri court lacked personal jurisdiction. Because it had already filed a Rule 12 motion without that defense, and the amended complaint added no new causes of action against it, the court held the defense forfeited under Rules 12(g)(2) and 12(h): “NASC has thus waived personal jurisdiction.” Neither order addressed the claims against MEPCO.

What This Means If You Have a Vehicle Service Contract Claim

The outcome is undecided. What is useful is the anatomy of a sales call that one company described in a federal pleading and a court found plausible enough to litigate. If someone calls to say shops have stopped honoring your contract, or that strangers administer your coverage and will not pay, verify it with the administrator named on your own contract and the repair facility you use. Do not cancel coverage on a phone call: a replacement contract can carry a new waiting period, different deductibles, and different exclusions, and a breakdown in the gap may fall under neither.

Florida regulates this sector directly. Motor vehicle service agreement companies operate under Chapter 634, Part I of the 2026 Florida Statutes, which requires the company to be licensed (§ 634.031) and its salespersons licensed and appointed (§ 634.171). Section 634.2815 prohibits unfair and deceptive acts in these sales, and § 634.282 defines them — including knowingly circulating a statement that “is a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing, or tending to induce, the lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion, or surrender” of a motor vehicle service agreement. Complaints go to the Florida Department of Financial Services.

Keep the contract as sold to you, the claim file, the denial, and the repair estimates. If your vehicle service contract claim has been denied, a lawyer can review the contract language and the denial and explain the options available to you. Louis Law Group offers a free case evaluation.

Case details: NRRM, LLC v. Pelican Investment Holdings, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-01566-MAL (E.D. Mo.), Judge Maria A. Lanahan. Docket opened October 20, 2025; cause 15 U.S.C. § 1125; nature of suit 840 (docket record). The order denying Pelican’s motion (Doc. 102) entered September 24, 2026 (Doc. 178); order denying NASC’s motion (Doc. 100) entered September 25, 2026 (Doc. 179). The September 25 order captions the lead plaintiff “CarShield, LLC”; the docket and the September 24 order caption it NRRM, LLC. Docket reviewed September 29, 2026.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Filings described here reflect allegations, not established facts, and the rulings resolved motions to dismiss, not the merits. For background, see What Is a Vehicle Service Contract?