Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Untimely Notice of Server Outage and Related Client Communications Bars Coverage for Claim Filed against Technology Service Provider

iStock-924212046
By Edward R. Brown on April 13, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

An Illinois federal district court has ruled that a technology company’s failure to provide timely notice of a computer outage and related email demand barred coverage for a later-filed lawsuit.  Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. iNetworks Servs., LLC, 2020 WL 1491139 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2020).

An insured technology company stored data for its clients.  The insured’s server became infected with malware, and its client’s data was destroyed.  The client and insured exchanged emails about the incident and potential terms for settlement, but they did not come to a resolution.  Two years later, the client filed suit against the insured for negligence in connection with the incident.  The insured waited six months before tendering that lawsuit under a technology E&O policy and providing notice of the underlying incident for the first time.  The E&O insurer filed a coverage lawsuit seeking a determination of its rights and obligations.

In the coverage suit, the insurer argued that the company’s failure to provide timely notice of the dispute barred coverage.  The policy was a claims-made policy, which required notice of a claim or “glitch” “as soon as practicable” but did not otherwise require notice to be provided during the operative policy period.  Nonetheless, the court noted that Illinois courts “strictly construe notice requirements in claims-made policies” and ruled that the insured’s untimely notice barred coverage as a matter of law.  While the court noted that prejudice was “not a dispositive factor,” the court also observed that the insurer appeared to have been prejudiced by the delay given that it “was unable to investigate the [incident] in real time” and was “unable to provide [the insured] with experts that could have mitigated the data loss,” among other issues impacting any potential investigation.  On the basis of late notice, the court ruled that the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the company.

Photo of Edward R. Brown Edward R. Brown

Ted serves as coverage counsel for claims under professional liability and general liability policies, with a focus on media, technology, and privacy-related exposures. He routinely advises insurers in connection with cyber insurance and other first- and third-party technology risks.

Read more about Edward R. BrownEmail
  • Posted in:
    Corporate & Commercial, Insurance
  • Blog:
    Wiley Executive Summary
  • Organization:
    Wiley Rein LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Pro Policyholder
  • The Way on FDA
  • Crypto Digest
  • Inside Cybersecurity & Privacy Law
  • La Oficina Legal Ayala Hernández
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo