(follow-up) Northern District of Illinois Foreshadows Tough Row[e] to Hoe for Identity Exposure Plaintiff, but Denies Motion to Dismiss
Brendon Tavelli writes:
On January 5, 2010, Judge William Hibbler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois became the latest federal district judge to share his views about whether an increased risk of future harm based on the inadvertent exposure of personal information is a legally cognizable harm. In Rowe v. UniCare Life & Health Insurance Co., No. 1:09-cv-2286 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2010), Judge Hibbler denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because, in his view, after drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, the plaintiff’s complaint satisfied the minimal pleading standard required to survive a motion to dismiss. Nevertheless, in his written opinion, Judge Hibbler hinted that the plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and the Illinois Insurance Information and Privacy Act, as well as his common law claims of invasion of privacy, negligence and breach of implied contract, may ultimately be dismissed if the plaintiff failed to show a basis for damages other than his alleged increased risk of future harm, such as identity theft.
Read more on Privacy Law Blog.
This lawsuit may be related to the Wellpoint/Unicare breach that was first exposed by PogoWasRight.org. If so, there are aspects of the lawsuit that are puzzling to me, but perhaps the plaintiff never read PogoWasRight.org’s coverage of the circumstances of the breach.