Follow the Money: No Homeowners Coverage for Employee Sued Individually for Data Theft

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on January 11, 2013 that there is no coverage under a homeowner’s policy for an employee of an accounting firm who had a CD stolen from her car. The CD contained financial information and other PII of 30,000 members of a pension fund and client of the accounting firm. The pension fund incurred more than $200,000 for credit monitoring and related mitigation expenses. It sued the accounting firm but also named the employee individually for negligently safeguarding the data. The employee tendered the claim to her homeowner insurer, Nationwide Insurance, which denied coverage on grounds that the policy excludes coverage for (i) damage to property “in the care of” the insured and (ii) a claim arising out of or related to a “business” engaged in by the insured. Applying Illinois law, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of no coverage based upon the two policy exclusions. Continue reading

Off to a Fast Start

In addition to the near-daily reports of more breaches, new laws and controversial workplace privacy issues, there have been 3 significant developments involving cyber and privacy already in 2013.

1. On January 17, 2013 the Department of Health and Human Services released its final “omnibus” rule in relation to HIPAA, effective March 26, 2013. The sweeping rule implements privacy regulations, increases penalties for HITECH violations, modifies breach notification rules, restricts disclosure of genetic information and expands the definition and responsibilities of business associates. Continue reading

WWM Case Alert: MN Supreme Court Restricts Scope Of AI Coverage

Joyce F. Noyes

Engineering & Constructions Innovations v. L.H. Bolduc & Travelers Indem. Co. (Minn. Jan. 23, 2013)

CGL insurers will take interest in a recent decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, in which the Court held that a contractor did not qualify for additional insured (AI) coverage under its subcontractor’s policy and the subcontract’s indemnity provisions were unenforceable. The decision is noteworthy for two holdings. First, the Court adopted a narrow reading of the scope of an AI endorsement making the contractor an AI for liability “caused by the acts or omissions” of its subcontractor by limiting the AI coverage to claims involving the subcontractor’s negligence. Second, the court held that the subcontract’s indemnity provision violated Minnesota Statute § 337.01, et seq., because it required the subcontractor to indemnify the contractor for damages not caused by the subcontractor’s negligence and, due to the inapplicability of the AI coverage, was not supported by a coextensive insurance agreement. Continue reading

Illinois Appellate Court Finds Malpractice Policy’s “No Admission of Liability” Clause Void as against Public Policy

Click here for PDF.

In Illinois State Bar Association Mutual Insurance Co. v. Frank M. Greenfield & Assocs., et al., 2012 IL App (1st) 110337 (Ill. Ct. App. Nov. 9, 2012), the Illinois Appellate Court (First District), Mary L. Mikva, P.J., upheld the trial court’s ruling finding that an insurer had a duty to defend a lawyer who had admitted making a mistake in drafting a will.  The lawyer had disclosed his error to his former client’s beneficiaries and then sought a defense from his insurer when the beneficiaries sued him.  The insurer denied coverage on the basis of a policy provision prohibiting the lawyer from admitting liability without the insurer’s consent, and sought a declaratory judgment that it had no duty to defend. In affirming the summary judgment for the lawyer, the Illinois Appellate Court found the provision unenforceable and against public policy, as it interfered with the lawyer’s duties of disclosure under the ethics rules. Continue reading

N.D. of Ohio Holds Unsolicited Communications Exclusion Bars Coverage For TCPA Violations

By: Arthur J. McColgan

Click here for PDF.

MCD Acquisition Co., et al. v. The North River Ins. Co., et al., No. 5:10CV 2855, 2012 WL 4483411, (N.D. Ohio Sept. 27, 2012). On September 27, 2012, Judge David D. Dowd, Jr. granted Travelers Property Casualty Company of America’s (“Travelers”) Motion for Summary Judgment finding there was no duty to defend or indemnify the Insureds in an underlying junk fax class action suit filed by Universal Health Resources (“UHR”) based on an Unsolicited Communications exclusion. Continue reading

TX: Liability Insurers may have a Duty to Indemnify

Click here for PDF

By: Kristine M. Sorenson and Stephen O. Venable

On February 25, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court held that a liability insurer may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises. See The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 334 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2011). This decision reaffirms its prior, and somewhat controversial, decision in D.R. Horton-Texas, Ltd. v. Markel International Ins. Co., wherein the Texas Supreme Court similarly held that liability insurer’s “duty to indemnify is not dependent on the duty to defend and that [it] may have a duty to indemnify its insured even if the duty to defend never arises.” 300 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. 2009). Continue reading