Recall Total Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 14 January 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 34716.,34716. |
Citation | 83 A.3d 664,147 Conn.App. 450 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | RECALL TOTAL INFORMATION MANAGEMENT, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edmund M. Kneisel, pro hac vice, with whom were Lawrence G. Rosenthal, and, on the brief, Matthew T. Wax–Krell, Hartford, and Brian K. Epps, pro hac vice, for the appellants (plaintiffs).
Melicent B. Thompson, with whom was Eric S. Lankton, Simsbury, for the appellee (named defendant).
Robert D. Laurie, with whom, on the brief, was Elizabeth F. Ahlstrand, for the appellee (defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company).
LAVINE, KELLER and SULLIVAN, Js.
This breach of an insurance contract dispute involves the interpretation of a personal injury clause in a commercial general liability policy. The plaintiffs, Recall Total Information Management, Inc. (Recall) and Executive Logistics, Inc. (Ex Log), appeal from the grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Federal Insurance Company (Federal) and Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale).1 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly construed the insurance contract at issue by concluding that (1) the defendants did not have a duty to defend, and (2) the losses associated with a data-loss incident were not personal injuries. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, as agreed to in the parties' stipulation of facts, are germane to the resolution of this appeal. In October, 2003, Recall entered into a vital records storage agreement with International Business Machines (IBM) whereby Recall agreed to transport and store various electronic media belonging to IBM. In February, 2006, Recall entered into a subcontract with Ex Log to provide transportation services for the electronic media. Under the subcontract with Recall, Ex Log was required to maintain various insurance policies, including a $2 million commercial general liability policy and a $5 million umbrella liability policy, all naming Recall as an additional insured. The defendants issued the required insurance.2
On February 23, 2007, Ex Log dispatched a transport van to move computer tapes (tapes) from an IBM facility in New York to another location. During transport, a cart containing the tapes fell out of the back of the van near a highway exit ramp. The parties agree that approximately 130 of the tapes were removed from the roadside by an unknown person and never recovered.
The tapes that were never recovered contained employment-related data for some 500,000 past and present IBM employees. This information included social security numbers, birthdates, and contact information. After being notified that the tapes had been lost, IBM immediately took steps to prevent harm from any dissemination of this personal information. These steps included notification to potentially affected employees and the establishment of a call center to answer inquiries regarding the lost data. IBM also provided those who could be affected by the loss with one year of credit monitoring to protect against identity theft. IBM claimed a total of more than $6 million in expenses 3 for the mitigation measures it took and entered into a negotiated settlement with Recall for the full amount of the loss.
Thereafter, Recall sought indemnification from Ex Log. Ex Log then filed claims against the policy, but the defendants denied coverage. Following the denial of coverage, Recall and Ex Log entered into a settlement agreement and on June 22, 2009, Ex Log signed a promissory note in favor of Recall for $6,419,409.79 and assigned all of its rights under the policy to Recall.
The plaintiffs commenced the present action against the defendants on July 24, 2009. The complaint alleged several counts, including breach of an insurance contract. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment with respect to the count alleging breach of an insurance contract on the ground that, as a matter of law, they had no duty to defend and that the plaintiffs' loss was not covered by the policy. The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment, concluding that the defendants had not waived their coverage defenses and that the plaintiffs' losses were not covered under either the property damage or the personal injury provisions of the policy.
With respect to whether the defendants had waived their coverage defenses, the trial court concluded that, under the policy, the defendants only had a duty to defend against a “suit.” The trial court found that the term “suit” was unambiguous and declined to interpret that term to include mere negotiations. The trial court then turned to whether the loss associated with the lost tapes was covered under the terms of the policy. The trial court addressed whether the loss was covered under the property damage provision of the policy and determined that the data loss constituted intangible property, which was expressly excluded from coverage.4
Next, the trial court addressed whether there was coverage under the personal injury provision of the policy. The trial court noted that the plaintiffs did not allege that the information contained on the tapes was ever accessed by anyone following the incident in which the tapes were lost. Accordingly, the trial court reasoned: The trial court then rendered summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reargument, which was denied. This appeal followed. 6
On appeal, the plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred when it construed the policy and concluded that (1) the defendants did not have a duty to defend, and (2) the loss of the tapes did not constitute a personal injury. We disagree.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Norse Systems, Inc. v. Tingley Systems, Inc., 49 Conn.App. 582, 590–91, 715 A.2d 807 (1998). Finally, (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) R.T. Vanderbilt Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 273 Conn. 448, 456, 870 A.2d 1048 (2005).
We first address the issue of whether the defendants have waived their coverage defenses. The plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in ruling that the defendants did not have a duty to defend. The trial court found, on the basis of the policy, that the defendants had not breached their duty to defend, and consequently, had not waived their coverage defenses pursuant to our Supreme Court's ruling in Black v. Goodwin, Loomis & Britton, Inc., 239 Conn. 144, 160, 681 A.2d 293 (1996) ( ). On the basis of our own construction of the policy, we agree with the trial court.
“Where, as in the present case, an insured alleges that an insurer improperly has failed to defend and provide coverage for underlying claims that the insured has settled the insured has the burden of proving that the claims were within the policy's coverage....” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 249 Conn. 36, 55, 730 A.2d 51 (1999). 7
The policy provides, in relevant part, that: “[s]ubject to all of the terms and conditions of this insurance, we will have the right and duty to defend the insured against a suit, even if such suit is false, fraudulent, or groundless.” The policy defines a “suit” as “a civil proceeding in which damages, to which this insurance applies are sought ... [and] includes arbitration or other dispute resolution proceeding ... to which the insured must submit or does submit with our consent.”
The plaintiffs' claim is based on the following additional facts. Following the incident in which the tapes were lost, IBM retained a consultant and took remedial actions. IBM also made a demand against Recall on March 30, 2007, for all of the costs that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc.
...for trial. See, e.g., Doublewal Corp. v. Toffolon, 195 Conn. 384, 390–91, 488 A.2d 444 (1985) ; Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 147 Conn.App. 450, 456, 83 A.3d 664, cert. granted, 311 Conn. 925, 86 A.3d 469 (2014). “The principle that a plaintiff may rely only......
-
NetScout Systems, Inc. v. Gartner, Inc.
... ... omitted.) Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v ... ederal Ins. Co. , 147 Conn.App. 450, 456, 83 A.3d 664 ... Court of Appeals, 9 Fed.Appx. 38 (2d Cir. 2001) ... ...
-
O’Neil v. Town of Woodbridge
... ... Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal ... 130, 146 (D.Conn. 2011) aff’d, 504 Fed.Appx. 43 (2d Cir ... 2012). " [A] mere ... ...
-
Li v. Yaggi, AC 40683
...Any construction of the agreement that disregards this distinction must be rejected. See Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. , 147 Conn. App. 450, 460, 83 A.3d 664 (2014) (rejecting broad construction of term "suit" where such construction would obliterate distinct......
-
A Data Breach By Any Other Name
...a "publication" for purposes of personal and advertising injury coverage is Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 83 A.3d 664 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). Both policyholders and insurers await the Connecticut Supreme Court's impending review of this decision, and argue th......
-
Cyber Insurance Coverage: The Next Wave?
...liability policy. The case is currently on appeal. The court in Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 83 A.3d 664 (Conn. App. 2014), cert. granted, 311 Conn. 925, 86 A.3d 469 (2014), involving computer tapes that fell off of a truck, reached the same conclusion......
-
Connecticut Court Issues Decision On Insurance Coverage For Data Breaches
...or other publication of material that . . . violates a person's right to privacy." Recall Total Info. Mgmt. v. Federal Ins. Co., 147 Conn. App. 450 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014). In construing the policy language, the appellate court declared that personal injury was "not the loss of the physical t......
-
Investigating coverage
...portion of the policy because the information had not been published. See Recall Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co ., 83 A.3d 664 (Conn. App.Ct. 2014). This matter is currently on appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court. In another case, a hospital was sued when it entrus......
-
Chapter 8
...Indemnity Co., 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 3 (Cal. App. 1998). Connecticut: Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 147 Conn. App. 450, 83 A.3d 664 (2014). Florida: Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2003). Illinois: Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay,......
-
CHAPTER 9 Comprehensive General Liability Insurance—The Pollution Exclusions
...Indemnity Co., 76 Cal. Rptr.2d 3 (Cal. App. 1998). Connecticut: Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., 147 Conn. App. 450, 83 A.3d 664 (2014). Florida: Allstate Insurance Co. v. Ginsberg, 863 So.2d 156 (Fla. 2003). Illinois: Standard Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lay,......
-
2014 Connecticut Appellate Review
...Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (2012). [79] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-60 (2013). [80] 148 Conn.App. 728, 87 A.3d 1124 (2014). [81] 147 Conn.App. 450, 83 A.3d 664, cert, granted, 311 Conn. 925, 86 A.3d 469 (2014). [82] 148 Conn.App. 234, 85 A.3d 13 (2014). [83] 148 Conn.App. 1, 85 A.3d 1 (2014). ......