Maybe you’ve been following this story? A Toronto woman is suing her cell phone provider for the break-up of her marriage.
But wait, there’s more.
The woman, Gabriella Nagy, contracted with the cell phone company, Rogers, to provide her with a cell phone in her maiden name and have the bills sent to her under that name. She paid that bill herself. The cable bill, also from Rogers, was sent to the same address but in the husband’s name. The husband paid the cable bill.
One day, the family added internet and home phone services from Rogers. Rogers claims they “were informed that Ms. Nagy and her husband wished to have all services consolidated onto a single bill when the couple called to add additional services to their account.”
Gabriella Nagy, of course, says she was never consulted about having her cell phone bill absorbed with the other bills and that she would certainly never have agreed to have her cell phone bill consolidated with the other Rogers bills.
Because, Gabriella was having an affair.
And when her husband opened the first consolidated Rogers bill, he saw hours-long conversations to one particular number and got suspicious. He called the number and asked the person at the other end if they were having an affair with his wife. The person said yes and the husband immediately left the home and filed for divorce.
Poor Gabriella was so stressed by all this that she became clinically depressed and could no longer function at work and was fired from her $100,000 per year job.
She filed a suit against Rogers alleging the company:
Unilaterally terminated its cellular contract with the plaintiff that had been in her maiden name and included it in the husband’s account that was under his surname.
The plaintiff’s maiden name and the husband’s surname were different. Such unilateral action by the defendant was done without the knowledge, information, belief, acquiescence or approval of the plaintiff
Gabriella Nagy wants $600,000 from Rogers.
Rogers says it can’t be held responsible for “the marriage breakup and its effects” because they would have “would have happened, regardless of the form in which the plaintiff and her husband received their invoices for Rogers services.”
Who’s right and why? Would you award Gabriella Nagy the $600,000 or would you dismiss this case? (Please do not use any hate you have for Rogers, or cell phone providers in general, influence your judgement.)