FCL Fidelity Blog
Fidelity. Covered.
InComm: U.S. District Court holds that Computer Fraud Coverage does not respond in Prepaid Debit Card Scheme
Guest Co-Author: John Tomaine On March 16, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia released its decision in InComm Holdings, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company. The Court held that Great American’s computer fraud coverage did not respond where holders of prepaid debit cards used multiple simultaneous telephone calls to exploit a coding error in the insured’s computer system, thereby fraudulently increasing the balances on the cards. The Court also applied the recent appellate decisions in Apache (see our October 24, 2016 post) and Pestmaster (see our August 4, 2016 post) in holding that the loss scenario
Telamon: Seventh Circuit finds Insured’s Vice-President to be Independent Contractor falling outside Crime Policy’s Employee Theft Coverage
On March 9, 2017, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Telamon Corporation v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. The decision affirms the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which had held that the insured’s Vice-President of Major Accounts was not an “employee” within the meaning of a crime policy, as her services were provided to the insured by an outside entity pursuant to a series of consulting services agreements (see our April 25, 2016 post for more detail). The Facts Juanita Berry worked for Telamon from 2005 to 2011. Her
Citizens Bank: U.S. District Court rejects contra proferentem reading of Financial Institution Bond in finding No Coverage for Forged USDA Guarantees
On November 16, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin released its decision in Citizens Bank Holding Inc. v. Atlantic Specialty Insurance Co. The Court held that forged business loan guarantees purportedly issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) did not qualify for indemnity under Insuring Agreements D or E of a Financial Institution Bond. The decision is notable in that it reaffirms the interpretive principle that the Bond is not to be interpreted contra proferentem, as it is a product of negotiation between the banking and fidelity insurance industries. The Facts Citizens Bank maintained
Hantz Financial Services: Sixth Circuit enforces Suit Limitation Provision in finding No Coverage under Financial Institution Bond
On November 9, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in Hantz Financial Services, Inc. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Co., affirming the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan’s grant of summary judgment in favour of National Union in a claim advanced on a Financial Institution Bond. As we discussed in our September 29, 2015 post, the District Court held that no coverage was available to the insured, Hantz Financial Services, Inc. (“Hantz”), for losses resulting from its employee’s perpetrating a fraud on its clients, as such losses were indirect. The District Court
Apache Corporation: Fifth Circuit holds that Commercial Crime Policy’s Computer Fraud Coverage does not extend to Social Engineering Fraud Loss
On October 18, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released its opinion in Apache Corporation v. Great American Insurance Company. This is one of the first appellate decisions to consider coverage for a social engineering fraud loss under “traditional” commercial crime policy wording since the widespread introduction of social engineering fraud endorsements. In holding that the loss did not trigger indemnity under the Computer Fraud coverage, the Fifth Circuit adopted the interpretive approach to Computer Fraud coverage taken by the Ninth Circuit in Pestmaster Services v. Travelers (which we discussed in our August 4, 2016 post)
Tesoro Refining: Fifth Circuit analyzes scope of “Unlawful Taking” and “Forgery” in Commercial Crime Policy’s Employee Theft Coverage
In our April 14, 2015 post, we analyzed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and its implications for what constitutes “unlawful taking” for the purposes of the Employee Theft coverage. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favour of National Union. The Facts The insured (“Tesoro”) was a refiner and marketer of petroleum products. In 2003, Tesoro began selling fuel to Enmex, a petroleum distributor, on credit. The manager
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
BLOG EDITOR
TOPICS
- Authorized Access/Entry Exclusion
- Authorized Representative Exclusion
- Bills of Exchange Act (Canada)
- Computer Fraud
- Counterfeit
- Direct Loss
- Employee Theft
- False Pretences Exclusion
- Forgery
- Funds Transfer Fraud
- Inventory Exclusion
- Manifest Intent
- Other Property
- Outside Investment Advisor Rider
- Ownership
- Prior Insurance
- Securities Broker Exclusion
- Securities Coverage
- Social Engineering Fraud
- Standing
- Subrogation
- Subsidiary
- Suit Limitation Provision
- Termination
- Voluntary Parting Exclusion
ARCHIVES
RECENT POSTS
- Brooks & Derensis: U.S. District Court finds No Coverage for Cheque Fraud Loss under Forgery Insuring Agreements
- Westlake Chemical: Texas Court of Appeals applies Authorized Representative Exclusion in finding No Coverage under Crime Policy for Phony Invoicing Scheme
- Cachet Financial Services: U.S. District Court finds No Coverage under Commercial Crime Policy for Alleged ACH Kiting and Related Frauds
- Sportsinsurance.com: Second Circuit applies Suit Limitation Period to Dismiss Action on Commercial Crime Policy
- Star Title Partners: Eleventh Circuit finds No Coverage for Social Engineering Fraud Loss under Cybercrime Endorsement to Cyber Protection Policy