950 F.Supp. 493, 498 (E.D.N.Y.1996). Statutory claims that are penal in nature extinguish at the party’s death, whereas claims that are remedial in nature survive the party’s death. See id; see also Ashlar v. Honeywell, Inc., 95 F.R.D. 419, 423 (D.Conn.1982) (“Federal common law has long adopted the traditional rule that actions for penalties do not survive the death of a party.”). Courts look to three factors to determine whether a civil action brought under a statute is penal or remedial for purposes of survivability: “(a) whether the purpose of the acti in the context of interpreting coverage provided by an insurance contract, TCPA claims are remedial. See Hooters of Augusta, Inc. v. Am. Glob. Ins. Co., 272 F.Supp.2d 1365, 1375 (S.D.Ga.2003) aff'd, 157 Fed.Appx. 201 (11th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Alea London Ltd. v. Am. Home Servs.,
holding that for the purposes of standing to bring an action to recover on a contract privity is established by proving the defendant was a party to an enforceable contract with either the plaintiff or a party who assigned its cause of action to the plaintiff holding that section 227b3 is remedial because one of its purposes is to redress harms to individuals who are forced to absorb the costs associated with receiving unsolicited faxes and additionally any award of actual or statutory damages issues to the harmed individual or entity not to a third party holding tcpa is remedial statute and that statutory damages are not punitive damages recognizing that a court can exercise its discretion not to award costs to a prevailing party as long as the court states its reasons for refusing to permit the award holding that when governmental entity asserts affirmative claim for monetary damages against party entity does not have immunity from partys claims germane to connected to and properly defensive to claims asserted by the entity to the extent any recovery on those claims will offset any recovery by entity