DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Connecticut Appellate Court affirms denial of coverage under CGL policy for data breach

Posted on January 22, 2014 by Dissent

Michael A. Hamilton and Christopher J. DiIenno of Nelson Levine de Luca & Hamilton LLC discuss a case that pre-dates this blog but litigation over the insurer’s obligations has only recently resulted in an appellate ruling:

As more data breaches and information security events occur, the insurance industry will see more disputes over whether losses from these events are covered under commercial general liability (CGL) policies. In the latest round, the appellate court in Connecticut rejected the insureds’ attempts to seek coverage under a CGL policy for costs related to the response of a data breach of personal information.

In 2003, Recall Total Information Management, Inc. (Recall) agreed to transport and store computer tapes for IBM. Recall entered into a subcontract with Executive Logistics, Inc., (Ex Log) for transportation services. In 2007, a cart containing IBM’s computer tapes fell out of the back of an Ex Log van. Approximately 130 tapes, which included employment-related data, including Social Security numbers, birthdates, and contact information were taken from the roadside and never recovered. In order to provide legally required notice of the incident to the approximately 500,000 past and present IBM employees affected, IBM incurred more than $6 million in expenses for a call center and one year of credit monitoring. Recall sought indemnification from Ex Log after entering into a negotiated settlement with IBM. Ex Log (and Recall as an additional insured) sought coverage under a CGL policy issued by its carrier.

The court addressed the issue of whether the insurer had a duty to pay the notification costs under the “personal injury” section of the policy, in particular, coverage for injury caused by “publication of material that…violates a person’s right to privacy.” Plaintiffs alleged that the loss of the computer tapes was publication of the information to the thief.

Read more about the case and the court’s ruling on Lexology.

The case was Recall Total Information Management v. Federal Insurance Company. I’ve uploaded the opinion here (pdf).


Related:

  • PowerSchool commits to strengthened breach measures following engagement with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  • Two more entities have folded after ransomware attacks
  • British institutions to be banned from paying ransoms to Russian hackers
  • Global hack on Microsoft product hits U.S., state agencies, researchers say
  • Qantas obtains injunction to prevent hacked data’s release
  • Ransomware attack disrupts Korea's largest guarantee insurer
Category: Business SectorLost or MissingOf NoteSubcontractor

Post navigation

← Court guts much of class action lawsuit against Sony over data breach, but some claims remain
Ca: Medicentres laptop with info on 620,000 patients was stolen in September. NOW they tell them? →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • IVF provider Genea notifies patients about the cyberattack earlier this year.
  • Key figure behind major Russian-speaking cybercrime forum targeted in Ukraine
  • Clorox Files $380M Suit Alleging Cognizant Gave Hackers Passwords in Catastrophic 2023 Cyberattack
  • Cyberattacks Paralyze Major Russian Restaurant Chains
  • France Travail: At least 340,000 job seekers victims of new hack
  • Legal Silence and Chilling Effects: Injunctions Against the Press in Cybersecurity
  • #StopRansomware: Interlock
  • Suspected XSS Forum Admin Arrested in Ukraine
  • PowerSchool commits to strengthened breach measures following engagement with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada
  • Hungarian police arrest suspect in cyberattacks on independent media

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Meta Denies Tracking Menstrual Data in Flo Health Privacy Trial
  • Wikipedia seeks to shield contributors from UK law targeting online anonymity
  • British government reportedlu set to back down on secret iCloud backdoor after US pressure
  • Idaho agrees not to prosecute doctors for out-of-state abortion referrals
  • As companies race to add AI, terms of service changes are going to freak a lot of people out. Think twice before granting consent!
  • Uganda orders Google to register as a data-controller within 30 days after landmark privacy ruling
  • Meta investors, Zuckerberg reach settlement to end $8 billion trial over Facebook privacy violations

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.