OF MATERIAL IN VIOLATION OF STATUTES “Personal and advertising injury” arising directly or indirectly out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate: a. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), including any amendment of or addition to such law.... Id. Here, the TCPA Exclusion clearly and unambiguously applies to absolve Plaintiff of a duty to indemnify Med Waste for damage or injury “arising directly or indirectly out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate” the TCPA. Id. The Court therefore finds that the TCPA Exclusion squarely precludes coverage and the correlated duty to indemnify for the TCPA claims in the Underlying Lawsuit. There is nothing ambiguous about the TCPA Exclusion. See id.; see also Interline Brands, 749 F.3d at 966 (<HOLDING>). In addition, the Court also finds that the
holding that the plaintiffs did not fall within the zone of interests protected by the tcpa because they attempted to use the statute in a way not intended or contemplated by congress and because their damages are not of the vexatious and intrusive nuisance nature sought to be redressed by congress in enacting the tcpa holding no coverage for tcpa claims under similar policy exclusion where violations of the tcpa were not explicitly excluded by name but rather were excluded because the exclusion applied to violations of any statute  that  addresses  the sending transmitting or communicating of any material or information   holding that claims were clearly excluded from coverage under assault and battery exclusion and therefore insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify holding location of named driver exclusion in endorsement did not make it ambiguous exclusion applied to all coverage afforded by the policy including the um coverage holding similar exclusion excluding coverage for any loss was clear and unambiguous and excluded coverage for um claims even though such claims were not expressly mentioned in the exclusion