We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-4 of 4

Sixth Circuit finds coverage for losses resulting from retailer's data breach

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 5 2012

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that losses resulting from the theft of customers’ banking information from a retailer’s computer system are covered under a commercial crime policy’s computer fraud endorsement

Sixth Circuit finds coverage for losses resulting from retailer’s data breach

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 4 2012

On August 23, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Retailer Ventures, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. that losses resulting from the theft of customers’ banking information from a retailer’s computer system are covered under a commercial crime policy’s computer fraud endorsement

Minnesota AG sues debt collection agency for health privacy violations

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 24 2012

On January 19, 2012, Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson announced a lawsuit against Accretive Health, Inc., for violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations, the Minnesota Health Records Act, Minnesota’s debt collection statutes and Minnesota’s consumer protection laws

Minnesota federal court finds no coverage under technology errors and omissions policy because claims did not arise out of a “wrongful act” as defined in the policy

  • Hunton & Williams LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 10 2007

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied a policyholder’s motion for summary judgment and granted an insurer’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that an electronic and information technology errors and omissions policy afforded coverage to defend a policyholder only against claims arising out of a “wrongful act” in the performance of or failure to perform electronic and information technology services, as defined by the policy, and not for a contract dispute that did not arise out of such a “wrongful act.”